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]

Message-ID: <20080405185444.2c433673@tomh>
Date:	Sat, 5 Apr 2008 18:54:44 -0400
From:	Tom Horsley <tom.horsley@...r.com>
To:	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
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 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 :-).
--
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/