Re: [PATCH v3 00/24] Remove COMMAND_LINE_SIZE from uapi

[Alexandre Ghiti <alex@ghiti.fr>]

Hi Peter,


On 3/2/23 20:50, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On March 1, 2023 7:17:18 PM PST, Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 14 Feb 2023 01:19:02 PST (-0800), hca@linux.ibm.com wrote:
>>> On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 09:58:17AM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>>>> Hi Heiko,
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 9:39 AM Heiko Carstens <hca@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 08:49:01AM +0100, 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>> Just to confirm this assumption a bit more: that's actually the same
>>>>> conclusion that we ended up with when commit 3da0243f906a ("s390: make
>>>>> command line configurable") went upstream.
>> Thanks, I guess I'd missed that one.  At some point I think there was some discussion of making this a Kconfig for everyone, which seems reasonable to me -- our use case for this being extended is syzkaller, but we're sort of just picking a value that's big enough for now and running with it.
>>
>> Probably best to get it out of uapi first, though, as that way at least it's clear that it's not uABI.
>>
>>>> Commit 622021cd6c560ce7 ("s390: make command line configurable"),
>>>> I assume?
>>> Yes, sorry for that. I got distracted while writing and used the wrong
>>> branch to look this up.
>> Alex: Probably worth adding that to the list in the cover letter as it looks like you were planning on a v4 anyway (which I guess you now have to do, given that I just added the issue to RISC-V).
> The only use that is uapi is the *default* length of the command line if the kernel header doesn't include it (in the case of x86, it is in the bzImage header, but that is atchitecture- or even boot format-specific.)

Is COMMAND_LINE_SIZE what you call the default length? Does that mean 
that to you the patchset is wrong?

Thanks,

Alex



_______________________________________________
linux-riscv mailing list
linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv