Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 6 Mar 2023 14:19:15 +0100 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v5 00/26] Remove COMMAND_LINE_SIZE from uapi | From | Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <> |
| |
On 6/3/23 11:04, Alexandre Ghiti wrote: > This all came up in the context of increasing COMMAND_LINE_SIZE in the > RISC-V port. In theory that's a UABI break, as COMMAND_LINE_SIZE is the > maximum length of /proc/cmdline and userspace could staticly rely on > that to be correct. > > Usually I wouldn't mess around with changing this sort of thing, but > PowerPC increased it with a5980d064fe2 ("powerpc: Bump COMMAND_LINE_SIZE > to 2048"). There are also a handful of examples of COMMAND_LINE_SIZE > increasing, but they're from before the UAPI split so I'm not quite sure > what that means: e5a6a1c90948 ("powerpc: derive COMMAND_LINE_SIZE from > asm-generic"), 684d2fd48e71 ("[S390] kernel: Append scpdata to kernel > boot command line"), 22242681cff5 ("MIPS: Extend COMMAND_LINE_SIZE"), > and 2b74b85693c7 ("sh: Derive COMMAND_LINE_SIZE from > asm-generic/setup.h."). > > It seems to me like COMMAND_LINE_SIZE really just shouldn't have been > part of the uapi to begin with, and userspace should be able to handle > /proc/cmdline of whatever length it turns out to be. I don't see any > references to COMMAND_LINE_SIZE anywhere but Linux via a quick Google > search, but that's not really enough to consider it unused on my end. > > This issue was already considered in s390 and they reached the same > conclusion in commit 622021cd6c56 ("s390: make command line > configurable"). > > The feedback on the v1 seemed to indicate that COMMAND_LINE_SIZE really > shouldn't be part of uapi, so this now touches all the ports. I've > tried to split this all out and leave it bisectable, but I haven't > tested it all that aggressively.
Series: Reviewed-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@linaro.org>
| |