David Miller [off-list ref] writes:

From: ebiederm-aS9lmoZGLiVWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org (Eric W. Biederman)
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 13:16:44 -0600

quoted

David Miller [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

From: josh-iaAMLnmF4UmaiuxdJuQwMA@public.gmane.org
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 10:53:10 -0800

quoted

It's not a "slippery slope"; it's been our standard practice for ages.

We've never put an entire class of generic system calls behind
a config option.

CONFIG_SYSVIPC has been in the kernel as long as I can remember.

I seem to remember a plan to remove that code once userspace had
finished migrating to more unixy interfaces to ipc.  But in 20 years
that migration does does not seem to have finished, or even look
like it ever will.

But if we started a slippery slope it was long long ago.

Fair enough.

Would be amusing if these tiny systems have it enabled.

It would.

In practice when I was playing in that space I had a hard time
justifying CONFIG_NET and CONFIG_INET.  Despite writing a network
bootloader to use with kexec.

Eric
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html