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

From: Andy Lutomirski
Date: Wed Oct 15 2014 - 01:57:12 EST

On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 10:46 PM, Frank Rowand <frowand.list@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 10/14/2014 2:21 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> 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
> ^^^^^^^^^ 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.

> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 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.


>> 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.
>> --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
Please read the FAQ at