From: Frank Rowand <frowand.list@gmail.com>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>,
Rob Landley <rob@landley.net>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Chuck Ebbert <cebbert.lkml@gmail.com>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>,
Shuah Khan <shuah.kh@samsung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] init: Disable defaults if init= fails
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2014 23:37:28 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <543E1628.4020808@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CALCETrV5K15EPDiPvCFhxCHuZ6J4+S=KniOE-WkBgpiVkLLk4w@mail.gmail.com>
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
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-10-15 6:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-09-29 2:40 [PATCH v5] init: Disable defaults if init= fails Andy Lutomirski
2014-09-30 12:12 ` Chuck Ebbert
2014-10-01 0:41 ` Frank Rowand
2014-10-01 0:58 ` Rob Landley
2014-10-01 1:52 ` Frank Rowand
2014-10-01 3:16 ` Rob Landley
2014-10-01 4:53 ` Andy Lutomirski
2014-10-01 18:05 ` josh
2014-10-01 18:13 ` Andy Lutomirski
2014-10-01 22:42 ` josh
2014-10-14 21:00 ` Andrew Morton
2014-10-14 21:21 ` Andy Lutomirski
2014-10-15 5:46 ` Frank Rowand
2014-10-15 5:56 ` Andy Lutomirski
2014-10-15 6:37 ` Frank Rowand [this message]
2014-10-15 15:18 ` Rob Landley
2014-10-20 20:14 ` Andy Lutomirski
2014-10-20 21:01 ` Josh Triplett
2014-10-20 21:28 ` Andrew Morton
2014-10-20 21:34 ` Andy Lutomirski
2014-10-20 21:41 ` Andrew Morton
2014-10-20 21:42 ` Andy Lutomirski
2014-10-20 21:44 ` Andrew Morton
2014-10-20 22:04 ` [PATCH] init: Remove CONFIG_INIT_FALLBACK Andy Lutomirski
2014-10-20 22:06 ` josh
2014-10-21 3:45 ` Rob Landley
2014-10-21 4:02 ` Andy Lutomirski
2014-10-21 4:15 ` Rob Landley
2014-10-21 9:53 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2014-10-21 10:05 ` Josh Triplett
2014-10-14 0:47 ` [PATCH v5] init: Disable defaults if init= fails Rusty Russell
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=543E1628.4020808@gmail.com \
--to=frowand.list@gmail.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=cebbert.lkml@gmail.com \
--cc=josh@joshtriplett.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luto@amacapital.net \
--cc=rdunlap@infradead.org \
--cc=rob@landley.net \
--cc=shuah.kh@samsung.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).