kconfig: recursive checks drop file/lineno

This prevents segfault when getting filename and lineno in recursive
checks.

If the following snippet is found in Kconfig:

[Test code 1]

config FOO

kconfig: recursive checks drop file/lineno

This prevents segfault when getting filename and lineno in recursive
checks.

If the following snippet is found in Kconfig:

[Test code 1]

config FOO
bool
depends on BAR
select BAR

... without BAR defined; then there is a segfault.

Kconfig:34:error: recursive dependency detected!
Kconfig:34: symbol FOO depends on BAR
make[4]: *** [scripts/kconfig/Makefile:85: allnoconfig] Segmentation fault

This is because of the following. BAR is a fake entry created by
sym_lookup() with prop being NULL. In the recursive check, there is a
NULL check for prop to fall back to stack->sym->prop if stack->prop is
NULL. However, in this case, stack->sym points to the fake BAR entry
created by sym_lookup(), so prop is still NULL. prop was then referenced
without additional NULL checks, causing segfault.

As the previous email thread suggests, the file and lineno for select is
also wrong:

[Test code 2]

config FOO
bool

config BAR
bool

config FOO
bool "FOO"
depends on BAR
select BAR

$ make defconfig
*** Default configuration is based on 'x86_64_defconfig'
Kconfig:1:error: recursive dependency detected!
Kconfig:1: symbol FOO depends on BAR
Kconfig:4: symbol BAR is selected by FOO
[...]

Kconfig:4 should be Kconfig:10.

This patch deletes the wrong and segfault-prone filename/lineno
inference completely. With this patch, Test code 1 yields:

error: recursive dependency detected!
symbol FOO depends on BAR
symbol BAR is selected by FOO

Signed-off-by: HONG Yifan <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <[email protected]>

show more ...

kconfig: remove tristate choice support

I previously submitted a fix for a bug in the choice feature [1], where
I mentioned, "Another (much cleaner) approach would be to remove the
tristate choice s

kconfig: remove tristate choice support

I previously submitted a fix for a bug in the choice feature [1], where
I mentioned, "Another (much cleaner) approach would be to remove the
tristate choice support entirely".

There are more issues in the tristate choice feature. For example, you
can observe a couple of bugs in the following test code.

[Test Code]

config MODULES
def_bool y
modules

choice
prompt "tristate choice"
default A

config A
tristate "A"

config B
tristate "B"

endchoice

Bug 1: the 'default' property is not correctly processed

'make alldefconfig' produces:

CONFIG_MODULES=y
# CONFIG_A is not set
# CONFIG_B is not set

However, the correct output should be:

CONFIG_MODULES=y
CONFIG_A=y
# CONFIG_B is not set

The unit test file, scripts/kconfig/tests/choice/alldef_expected_config,
is wrong as well.

Bug 2: choice members never get 'y' with randconfig

For the test code above, the following combinations are possible:

A B
(1) y n
(2) n y
(3) m m
(4) m n
(5) n m
(6) n n

'make randconfig' never produces (1) or (2).

These bugs are fixable, but a more critical problem is the lack of a
sensible syntax to specify the default for the tristate choice.
The default for the choice must be one of the choice members, which
cannot specify any of the patterns (3) through (6) above.

In addition, I have never seen it being used in a useful way.

The following commits removed unnecessary use of tristate choices:

- df8df5e4bc37 ("usb: get rid of 'choice' for legacy gadget drivers")
- bfb57ef0544a ("rapidio: remove choice for enumeration")

This commit removes the tristate choice support entirely, which allows
me to delete a lot of code, making further refactoring easier.

Note:
This includes the revert of commit fa64e5f6a35e ("kconfig/symbol.c:
handle choice_values that depend on 'm' symbols"). It was suspicious
because it did not address the root cause but introduced inconsistency
in visibility between choice members and other symbols.

[1]: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kbuild/[email protected]/T/#m0a1bb6992581462ceca861b409bb33cb8fd7dbae

Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Nicolas Schier <[email protected]>

show more ...