Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 5 May 2021 11:55:42 -0500 | From | Andrew Halaney <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] init: Print out unknown kernel parameters |
| |
On Wed, May 05, 2021 at 06:50:13PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Wed, May 05, 2021 at 11:37:28AM -0500, Andrew Halaney wrote: > > I actually did use that recommendation essentially, the patch I've sent > > is riding on the work done by unknown_bootoption() which is populated by > > iterating over over the different sections parameters can live in - so > > this is only printing out arguments that didn't match a known kernel > > parameter. Sorry if I didn't make that clear earlier, definitely was > > trying to listen to your advice. > > Bah, don't take my "advice" too seriously - I'm just throwing out > guesses. :-) > > So ok, unknown_bootoption() handles those and AFAICT, that gets passed > to parse_args() with the __start___param and __stop___param range. > > But then there is that do_early_param() thing for early params, which > are different and which are between __setup_start and __setup_end - > i.e., the ones I meant above. > > And that function doesn't do the unknown bootoption handling ;-\ > > More fun. > Ah, but don't worry! It is handled, just secretly: unknown_bootoption()->obsolete_checksetup() walks __setup_start :)
> > I'll have to think about this some more (the "did you mean this > > parameter" part).. that seems like it might be more trouble than it is > > worth, but I admittedly haven't looked into those cheap algorithms you > > mentioned yet. The reason I say it might be more trouble than it is > > worth is because it is easy to say "why didn't my param work", then grep > > for it in dmesg and find it in the "Unknown command line parameters" > > list - that's sort of the workflow I imagined would happen when someone > > mucks with their kernel cli and doesn't get the intended result. > > Oh sure - that's what I meant with "cheap". If it can't be done > elegantly and easily, just forget it. dmesg | grep is a lot easier. :-) > > Thx. > Still worth considering, so at least lemme ponder it for a day instead of being lazy.
Thanks, Andrew
| |