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]

Message-ID: <20130418012539.GN3658@sgi.com>
Date:	Wed, 17 Apr 2013 20:25:39 -0500
From:	Robin Holt <holt@....com>
To:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc:	Robin Holt <holt@....com>, 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.

On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 05:39:33PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 04/17/2013 05:17 PM, Robin Holt wrote:
> > 
> > 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.
> > 
> 
> You are confusing implementation with interface.  That is what is so
> fundamentally wrong with that.  You really, really don't want to change
> interface unless the world will end if you don't.
> 
> As far as why centralize -- the main concern I have is that someone
> might try to introduce an arch-specific reboot= which is *syntactically*
> different, which is yet again really awful from a user perspective.

Yes and no.  I am saying that the interface is garbage and already
specified as arch specific.  You are asking me to take that garbage
interface and promote it to a general interface which will force us to
implement it in a completely crappy way.

Compare that with introducing a new interface which is concise and then
providing backwards compatibility.  Add to that the fact, I don't need
to pollute the kernel with some poorly done x86 interface and leave that
cruft for others to clean up.

Thanks,
Robin
--
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/