[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1702112054310.3734@nanos>
Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2017 21:06:03 +0100 (CET)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Kishore Karanala <kishore.karanala@...il.com>
cc: tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, matt@...eblueprint.co.uk,
rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com, thgarnie@...gle.com,
arbab@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Staging: setup.c : boot loader kernel arguments are
secured over cmdline.txt arguments for some systems
On Sun, 12 Feb 2017, Kishore Karanala wrote:
1;2802;0c
The proper subsystem for x86 is x86 and not staging.
Also your subject line is a way too long sentence instead of a short and
precise summary of the change.
> boot loader kernel arguments are secured over cmdline.txt
> arguments for some systems
Repeating it does not make it any better.
What's missing here is an explanation WHY this changes is needed and which
problem it solves.
> Signed-off-by: Kishore Karanala <kishore.karanala@...il.com>
> ---
> arch/x86/Kconfig | 3 +++
> arch/x86/kernel/setup.c | 7 ++++++-
> 2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/Kconfig b/arch/x86/Kconfig
> index e487493..3077fb0 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/Kconfig
> +++ b/arch/x86/Kconfig
> @@ -2224,6 +2224,9 @@ config CMDLINE
> In most cases, the command line (whether built-in or provided
> by the boot loader) should specify the device for the root
> file system.
> + In some of the systems boot loader arguments needs dominated over
> + cmdline arguments in systems like automotive , this can be done using
> + CMDLINE="!root=/dev/mmcblk0p1 ro"
I really have no idea what that sentence means. Also it does not explain
what the exclamation mark stands for.
Aside of that the indentation of that paragraph is wrong.
> config CMDLINE_OVERRIDE
> bool "Built-in command line overrides boot loader arguments"
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c b/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c
> index 4cfba94..5fa3194 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c
> @@ -962,11 +962,16 @@ void __init setup_arch(char **cmdline_p)
> #ifdef CONFIG_CMDLINE_OVERRIDE
> strlcpy(boot_command_line, builtin_cmdline, COMMAND_LINE_SIZE);
> #else
> - if (builtin_cmdline[0]) {
> + if (builtin_cmdline[0] != '!') {
> /* append boot loader cmdline to builtin */
> strlcat(builtin_cmdline, " ", COMMAND_LINE_SIZE);
> strlcat(builtin_cmdline, boot_command_line, COMMAND_LINE_SIZE);
> strlcpy(boot_command_line, builtin_cmdline, COMMAND_LINE_SIZE);
> + } else {
> + /* This will provide additional secuirty to cmdline */
I assume you mean security. What has this to do with security? The empty
changelog does not explain it neither does this comment.
> + /* arguments not overriding bootloader arguments */
Multiline comments are formatted like this
/*
* This is the first line of a multiline comment which
* continues on the second line.
*/
> + strlcat(boot_command_line, " ", COMMAND_LINE_SIZE);
> + strlcat(boot_command_line, &builtin_cmdline[1], COMMAND_LINE_SIZE);
So this is just the reverse order of the exsiting mechanism. What's the
point of this exercise?
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists