linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1] x86 support for the initrd= command line option

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: <CAP6exY+avh0G3nuqbxJj2ZgKkRdvwGTKeWyazqXJHbp+X-2u+A@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 23 Mar 2020 15:29:55 -0700
From:   ron minnich <rminnich@...il.com>
To:     "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc:     Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...gle.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        "maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE..." <x86@...nel.org>,
        lkml - Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] x86 support for the initrd= command line option

sounds good, I'm inclined to want to mention only initrdmem= in
Documentation? or just say initrd is discouraged or deprecated?

On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 2:41 PM <hpa@...or.com> wrote:
>
> On March 23, 2020 12:40:15 PM PDT, ron minnich <rminnich@...il.com> wrote:
> >I'm wondering -- adding initrdmem= is easy, do you think we'll ever be
> >able to end uses of initrd= in the ARM and MIPS world? Is it ok to
> >have these two identical command line parameters? I'm guessing just
> >changing initrd= would be hard.
> >
> >Do we just accept initrd= from this day forward, as well as initrdmem=?
> >
> >On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 12:06 PM <hpa@...or.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On March 23, 2020 11:54:28 AM PDT, ron minnich <rminnich@...il.com>
> >wrote:
> >> >On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 11:19 AM <hpa@...or.com> wrote:
> >> >> Pointing to any number of memory chunks via setup_data works and
> >> >doesn't need to be exposed to the user, but I guess the above is
> >> >reasonable.
> >> >
> >> >so, good to go?
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> *However*, I would also suggest adding "initrdmem=" across
> >> >architectures that doesn't have the ambiguity.
> >> >
> >> >agreed. I can look at doing that next.
> >> >
> >> >ron
> >>
> >> I would prefer if we could put both into the same patchset.
> >> --
> >> Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
>
> Yes, accept both.
> --
> Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.