| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <CALCETrWOUE=2fX1k+igfNizUfxRaZCc9NDgMzy7SM6fAjZMZuA@mail.gmail.com> 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists