Re: [PATCH v5] init: Disable defaults if init= fails
From: Andy Lutomirski
Date: Tue Oct 14 2014 - 17:21:34 EST
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 2:00 PM, Andrew Morton
> 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
TBH, my preference would be to make strict mode unconditional.
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/