linux-kernel - Re: module parameters versus 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:	Fri, 4 Apr 2008 12:45:37 +0100
From:	Marc Pignat <marc.pignat@...s.ch>
To:	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
Cc:	Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>,
	Tom Horsley <tom.horsley@...r.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: module parameters versus kernel command line

On Friday 04 April 2008, Rusty Russell wrote:
...
> The second is that users might be surprised when they take 
> the 'usbcore.blinkenlights' line out of their modprobe config file and it 
> still applies.  Most users use everything-is-a-module distributions.

Why don't do it in user space (let insmod/modprobe parse /proc/cmdline)?
1. Users won't be surprised after looking at the new man pages:)
2. it will work with older kernel

The warning problem is more complicated to fix.

Regards

Marc
--
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/