linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5] init: Disable defaults if init= fails

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]

Message-ID: <543E0A25.80401@gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 14 Oct 2014 22:46:13 -0700
From:	Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>
To:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
CC:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
	Rob Landley <rob@...dley.net>,
	"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 10/14/2014 2:21 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 2:00 PM, Andrew Morton
> <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>> 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=?
> 
> The consensus seems to be that adding a non-default option to get

      ^^^^^^^^^  I do not think you know what the word consensus means. :-)

I did not agree.

I do agree with Andrew (but with no opinion on whether "strictinit=SOMETHING"
or just "strictinit".

> sensible behavior would be unfortunate.  Also, I don't like
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  behavior that is useful in some or many contexts

> strictinit=, since backwards-compatible setups will have to do
> init=foo strictinit=foo.  My original proposal was init=foo
> strictinit.
> 
> TBH, my preference would be to make strict mode unconditional.
> http://xkcd.com/1172/
> 
> --Andy
> 

--
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/