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: <51D491AD.7050008@suse.cz>
Date:	Wed, 03 Jul 2013 23:03:41 +0200
From:	Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.cz>
To:	Jonathan Masters <jcm@...hat.com>
Cc:	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
	Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@...fusion.mobi>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com>,
	"linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] Allow optional module parameters

Dne 1.7.2013 18:33, Jonathan Masters napsal(a):
> One caveat. Sometimes we have manufactured parameters intentionally
> to cause a module to fail. We should standardize that piece.

You have:

  blacklist foo

to prevent udev from loading a module and

  install foo /bin/true

to prevent modprobe from loading the module at all. What is the
motivation for inventing a third way, through adding invalid parameters?

Thanks,
Michal
--
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/