linux-kernel - Re: stripping down the kernel-parameters.txt file

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]

Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0709120904130.20693@localhost.localdomain>
Date:	Wed, 12 Sep 2007 09:11:01 -0400 (EDT)
From:	"Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@...dspring.com>
To:	David Newall <david@...idnewall.com>
cc:	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: stripping down the kernel-parameters.txt file

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007, David Newall wrote:

> Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> >   while killing some time between compiles and ridding the
> > kernel-parameters.txt file of out-of-date or incorrect cruft, it
> > occurs to me that that file is borderline valueless since it
> > apparently tries to document every possible boot-time parameter,
> > including those associated with individual modules.  that's just
> > silly.
>
> "Silly" is such a negative word.  I think it's aspirational.  It
> probably can't be achieved, but that's no reason to give up, nor to
> remove existing text.

if the goal is to simply put all of the basic boot-time kernel parms
along with the module-specific ones into a single file, sorted in
alphabetical order, then i contend that this is, in fact, "silly".
the end result would be a somewhat chaotic mess since i think it's
clear that those "basic" kernel parms (as i call them) are
qualitatively different from the module-specific ones, and should be
segregated as such.

now, if they're still going to go into a single file, it *would* make
sense to put the basic ones at the top and, following that, the
module-specific ones, one module at a time.  *that* would make perfect
sense.  but to mix them as they are now doesn't.

rday

p.s.  by "basic", i mean those boot-time parms defined by either
"__setup()" or "early_param()".  which means that module writers
should, as much as possible, stop using those macros to define
command-line parameters for their modules.  that would go a long way
to restoring some order, and allowing for some decent and readable
documentation.

--
========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day
Linux Consulting, Training and Annoying Kernel Pedantry
Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA

http://crashcourse.ca
========================================================================
-
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/