Re: [PATCH v5] init: Disable defaults if init= fails

[Andy Lutomirski]

On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 2:00 PM, Andrew Morton
<akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Oct 2014 11:13:14 -0700 Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 11:05 AM,  <josh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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
sensible behavior would be unfortunate.  Also, I don't like
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

-- 
Andy Lutomirski
AMA Capital Management, LLC
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/