[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20141014140052.2f114c158ffe6cd953020f1c@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2014 14:00:52 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc: Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
Rob Landley <rob@...dley.net>, frowand.list@...il.com,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Chuck Ebbert <cebbert.lkml@...il.com>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
Shuah Khan <shuah.kh@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] init: Disable defaults if init= fails
On Wed, 1 Oct 2014 11:13:14 -0700 Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 11:05 AM, <josh@...htriplett.org> wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 09:53:56PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >> I significantly prefer default N. Scripts that play with init= really
> >> don't want the fallback, and I can imagine contexts in which it could
> >> be a security problem.
> >
> > While I certainly would prefer the non-fallback behavior for init as
> > well, standard kernel practice has typically been to use "default y" for
> > previously built-in features that become configurable. And I'd
> > certainly prefer a compile-time configuration option like this (even
> > with default y) over a "strictinit" kernel command-line option.
> >
>
> Fair enough.
>
> So: "default y" for a release or two, then switch the default? Having
> default y will annoy virtme, though it's not the end of the world.
> Virtme is intended to work with more-or-less-normal kernels.
>
Adding another Kconfig option is tiresome. What was wrong with strictinit=?
--
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