[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140613075011.GA4751@pd.tnic>
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2014 09:50:11 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
Cc: WANG Chao <chaowang@...hat.com>, Dave Young <dyoung@...hat.com>,
mjg59@...f.ucam.org, bhe@...hat.com, jkosina@...e.cz,
greg@...ah.com, kexec@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, ebiederm@...ssion.com, hpa@...or.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/13] kexec: Implementation of new syscall
kexec_file_load
On Mon, Jun 09, 2014 at 11:41:37AM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> IIUC, COMMAND_LINE_SIZE gives max limits of running kernel and it does
> not tell us anything about command line size supported by kernel being
> loaded.
Whatever you do, you do need a sane default because even querying the
boot protocol is not reliable as the to-be-loaded kernel's boot protocol
might be manipulated too, before signing (who knows what people do
in the wild).
So having a sane, unconditional fallback COMMAND_LINE_SIZE from the
first kernel is a must, methinks.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
Sent from a fat crate under my desk. Formatting is fine.
--
--
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