[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140930071204.551f0fef@as>
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2014 07:12:04 -0500
From: Chuck Ebbert <cebbert.lkml@...il.com>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Rob Landley <rob@...dley.net>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
Shuah Khan <shuah.kh@...sung.com>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] init: Disable defaults if init= fails
On Sun, 28 Sep 2014 19:40:31 -0700
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> wrote:
> If a user puts init=/whatever on the command line and /whatever
> can't be run, then the kernel will try a few default options before
> giving up. If init=/whatever came from a bootloader prompt, then
> this is unexpected but probably harmless. On the other hand, if it
> comes from a script (e.g. a tool like virtme or perhaps a future
> kselftest script), then the fallbacks are likely to exist, but
> they'll do the wrong thing. For example, they might unexpectedly
> invoke systemd.
>
> This makes a failure to run the specified init= process be fatal.
>
> As a temporary measure, users can set CONFIG_INIT_FALLBACK=y to
> preserve the old behavior. If no one speaks up, we can remove that
> option entirely after a release or two.
>
I like it. Now users could even use:
rdinit=foo init=bar
If foo fails, bar will be tried as a fallback, and nothing else after
that.
--
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