Messages in this thread | | | From | Andy Lutomirski <> | Date | Tue, 14 Oct 2014 22:56:39 -0700 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v5] init: Disable defaults if init= fails |
| |
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 10:46 PM, Frank Rowand <frowand.list@gmail.com> wrote: > 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
Even you're not disagreeing that it's ugly, though, FWIW.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > behavior that is useful in some or many contexts
Is there a context in which the current behavior is useful beyond "whoops, I typoed my grub command line edit, and I still want my system to boot into *something* even if it's the wrong thing"? I'm not personally that sympathetic to that particular use case, but maybe there's another one.
--Andy
> >> 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 >> >
-- Andy Lutomirski AMA Capital Management, LLC
| |