linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86: kill arch/x86/kernel/mpparse.c debugging printk.

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: <20080811184903.GB12788@elte.hu>
Date:	Mon, 11 Aug 2008 20:49:03 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>
Cc:	Rene Herman <rene.herman@...access.nl>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
	Yinghai Lu <yhlu.kernel@...il.com>,
	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: kill arch/x86/kernel/mpparse.c debugging printk.


* Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com> wrote:

> |   early_param conversions - and i think highlighting that as 
> |   separate commits might give someone ideas to improve the 
> |   early_param() facility, if they see the fix patterns.
> 
> Ingo - I think the problem with early_param is not NULL itself but 
> rather - what is the right way to deal with boot params? I mean we 
> could pass empty string (not NULL) in case of argument absence _but_ 
> would it be the right way? If you remember when I sent first series 
> for early_param checking (and actually there are number of same issue 
> exists for example in s390 arch) - I was asking community what is the 
> best way - since I'm not that strong in interface engineering - i 
> prefer fix the bugs :)

what would be the downside of passing in empty strings? I cannot see any 
serious one. The upside is that the conversion is more mechanic and 
safer as well.

Maybe the return code inversion could be / should be fixed as well, that 
seems like an unnecessary change as well:

  -       return 1;
  +       return 0;
   }
  -__setup("apic=", apic_set_verbosity);
  +early_param("apic", apic_set_verbosity);

Why do early-params have a different return convention from 
usual-params? It's just an unnecessary barrier against conversion to 
early params.

	Ingo
--
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/