linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -v5 5/5] Make reboot

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:	Wed, 17 Apr 2013 17:28:15 -0700
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	Robin Holt <holt@....com>
CC:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	"Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Russ Anderson <rja@....com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v5 5/5] Make reboot_cpuid a kernel parameter.

Better that than someone creating a completely different syntax.

Robin Holt <holt@....com> wrote:

>On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 03:15:33PM -0500, Robin Holt wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 12:59:57PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> > It is also worth noting that the documentation says reboot=s[mp]#
>> > whereas in fact only reboot=s# parse correctly.  I consider this to
>be a
>> > bug.
>> > 
>> > If we centralized the parser, we could take a string like
>> > 
>> > "reboot=bios,smp32,warm"
>> > 
>> > and parse it into:
>> > 
>> > reboot_cpu = 32
>> > reboot_mode = "bw"
>> > 
>> > ... and pass the information in that form to the arch layer.  I
>don't
>> > think we can do more parsing at that in the main kernel.
>> 
>> OK.  I will go back to the drawing board again.
>
>There are 4 items being parsed out of reboot= for x86:
> - reboot_mode		w[arm] | c[old]
> - reboot_cpu		s[mp]####
> - reboot_type		b[ios] | a[cpi] | k[bd] | t[riple] | e[fi] | p[ci]
> - reboot_force		f[orce]
>
>This seems like a lot to push into the generic kernel just to make it
>appear consistent when there will be no real cross arch consistency.
>
>
>Contrast that with:
>1) New kernel parameter (reboot_cpu) which is clear and concise, uses
>standard
>   parsing methods.
>2) Backwards compatibility in that a user with an existing (broken)
>reboot=s32
>on the command line will set reboot_cpu unless both were specified, in
>which
>   case reboot_cpu takes precedence.
>
>What is so fundamentally wrong with that?  It accomplishes exactly what
>you had asked for in that existing users are not broken.  We are
>introducing
>a new functionality in the general kernel.  Why not introduce a new
>parameter
>associated with that functionality.
>
>Thanks,
>Robin

-- 
Sent from my mobile phone. Please excuse brevity and lack of formatting.
--
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/