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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sun, 6 Apr 2008 13:08:30 +1000
From:	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
To:	Tom Horsley <tom.horsley@...r.com>
Cc:	Marc Pignat <marc.pignat@...s.ch>,
	Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jon Masters <jonathan@...masters.org>
Subject: Re: module parameters versus kernel command line

On Sunday 06 April 2008 08:54:44 Tom Horsley wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Apr 2008 08:29:00 +1000
>
> Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au> wrote:
> > I like this idea, and also have module tools ship with
> > a 'check-kernel-cmdline' tool which handles the warnings for unusable
> > cmdline params.  Distributions can run this in their init scripts, and we
> > can remove the warning from the kernel.
>
> Or maybe not have the warning at all, after all, even if
> sillymodule.sillyarg=1 doesn't make sense when I booted, who's to say I
> can't download the source to sillymodule, compile it, and modprobe it after
> boot time :-).

I think it's worse not to have typo protection.  Of course, our logs are so 
noisy they might miss the warning anyway.

Rusty.
--
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/