Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 14 Oct 2014 22:46:13 -0700 | From | Frank Rowand <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v5] init: Disable defaults if init= fails |
| |
On 10/14/2014 2:21 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 2:00 PM, Andrew Morton > <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote: >> On Wed, 1 Oct 2014 11:13:14 -0700 Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 11:05 AM, <josh@joshtriplett.org> wrote: >>>> On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 09:53:56PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote: >>>>> I significantly prefer default N. Scripts that play with init= really >>>>> don't want the fallback, and I can imagine contexts in which it could >>>>> be a security problem. >>>> >>>> While I certainly would prefer the non-fallback behavior for init as >>>> well, standard kernel practice has typically been to use "default y" for >>>> previously built-in features that become configurable. And I'd >>>> certainly prefer a compile-time configuration option like this (even >>>> with default y) over a "strictinit" kernel command-line option. >>>> >>> >>> Fair enough. >>> >>> So: "default y" for a release or two, then switch the default? Having >>> default y will annoy virtme, though it's not the end of the world. >>> Virtme is intended to work with more-or-less-normal kernels. >>> >> >> Adding another Kconfig option is tiresome. What was wrong with strictinit=? > > The consensus seems to be that adding a non-default option to get
^^^^^^^^^ I do not think you know what the word consensus means. :-)
I did not agree.
I do agree with Andrew (but with no opinion on whether "strictinit=SOMETHING" or just "strictinit".
> sensible behavior would be unfortunate. Also, I don't like ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ behavior that is useful in some or many contexts
> strictinit=, since backwards-compatible setups will have to do > init=foo strictinit=foo. My original proposal was init=foo > strictinit. > > TBH, my preference would be to make strict mode unconditional. > http://xkcd.com/1172/ > > --Andy >
| |