Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 14 Oct 2014 23:37:28 -0700 | From | Frank Rowand <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v5] init: Disable defaults if init= fails |
| |
On 10/14/2014 10:56 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > 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.
You are putting (lack of) words in my mouth. I did not comment on "ugly" because it did not seem that big a deal to me. I have no desire to bikeshed on ugly in this particular instance.
> >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> 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.
We've been through this before. I should have ignored your "sensible behavior" comment. Sorry, again no need for me to bike shed on that.
The question from Andrew was whether to use a config option or a command line option. One could choose either behavior as default, whether controlled by command line or config option.
> > --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
| |