linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] Allow optional module parameters

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: <87zjxypztm.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
Date:	Wed, 20 Mar 2013 13:01:01 +1030
From:	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
To:	Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com>
Cc:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org,
	Jon Masters <jcm@...hat.com>,
	Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@...fusion.mobi>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] Allow optional module parameters

Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com> writes:
> This should also go to stable, so the downgrading issue doesn't continue
> to bite people.

Andy was complaining about experimental params going away: I haven't
heard a single complaint about the downgrading issue.  I think it's a
nice to have, which is why I mentioned it.  I also CC'd the two
maintainers most likely to know if it *is* a current problem.  And note
that this code has been this way for over ten years!

No bug report, no cc:stable.

What if people were relying on detecting module parameters by the load
failing?  I'd rather find out when they upgrade to a new kernel instead
of poisoning the old ones, too.

Cheers,
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/