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]

Date:	Wed, 3 Jul 2013 14:17:15 -0700
From:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To:	Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.cz>
Cc:	Jonathan Masters <jcm@...hat.com>,
	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
	Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@...fusion.mobi>,
	"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

On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 2:03 PM, Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.cz> wrote:
> 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?
>

FWIW, I've occasionally booted with modulename.garbage=1 to prevent
modulename from loading at boot.  It may be worth adding a more
intentional way to do that.

--Andy

-- 
Andy Lutomirski
AMA Capital Management, LLC
--
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/