linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/26] Dynamic kernel command-line

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 04 Sep 2006 12:50:20 +1000
From:	Nigel Cunningham <ncunningham@...uxmail.org>
To:	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>
Cc:	Alon Bar-Lev <alon.barlev@...il.com>, Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>,
	Matt Domsch <Matt_Domsch@...l.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	johninsd@....rr.com, davej@...emonkey.org.uk, Riley@...liams.name,
	trini@...nel.crashing.org, davem@...emloft.net, ecd@...inaid.de,
	jj@...site.ms.mff.cuni.cz, anton@...ba.org, wli@...omorphy.com,
	lethal@...ux-sh.org, rc@....org.uk, spyro@....com, rth@...ddle.net,
	avr32@...el.com, hskinnemoen@...el.com, starvik@...s.com,
	ralf@...ux-mips.org, matthew@....cx, grundler@...isc-linux.org,
	geert@...ux-m68k.org, zippel@...ux-m68k.org,
	schwidefsky@...ibm.com, heiko.carstens@...ibm.com,
	uclinux-v850@....nec.co.jp, chris@...kel.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/26] Dynamic kernel command-line

Hi.

On Mon, 2006-09-04 at 09:33 +1000, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> Alon Bar-Lev writes:
> 
> > Current implementation stores a static command-line
> > buffer allocated to COMMAND_LINE_SIZE size. Most
> > architectures stores two copies of this buffer, one
> > for future reference and one for parameter parsing.
> 
> Under what circumstances do we actually need a command line of more
> than 256 bytes?
> 
> It seems to me that if 256 bytes isn't enough, we should take a deep
> breath, step back, and think about whether there might be a better way
> to pass whatever information it is that's using up so much of the
> command line.

I agree. The current limit varies widely, most often being 256 or 512,
but sometimes also 896 (s390!) or 1024 (arm, arm26, parisc) or 4096
(uml). Would users and developers of those arches care to enlighten? Why
896?

Regards,

Nigel


-- 
VGER BF report: H 4.24346e-05
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/