linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] initrd: Remove erroneous comment

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: <CAP6exYLd0uFbVSbn28iS1OV=jULtg2f+7t1DAn-fvGoRSd5dng@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 22 Jun 2020 13:56:24 -0700
From:   ron minnich <rminnich@...il.com>
To:     Tom Rini <trini@...sulko.com>
Cc:     lkml - Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>,
        Dominik Brodowski <linux@...inikbrodowski.net>,
        "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] initrd: Remove erroneous comment

So, let me first add,  the comment can be removed as needed. Comments
offered only for clarification.

On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 1:40 PM Tom Rini <trini@...sulko.com> wrote:

> But what do you mean UEFI "consumes" initrd= ?

What I mean is, there are bootloaders that will, if they see initrd=
in the command line, remove it: the kernel will never see it.

>  I guess looking at
> Documentation/x86/boot.rst is where treating initrd= as a file that
> should be handled and ramdisk_image / ramdisk_size set came from.  I do
> wonder what happens in the case of ARM/ARM64 + UEFI without device tree.

it is possible that the initrd= argument will not be seen by the
kernel. That's my understanding. Will this be a problem if so? It
would be for me :-)

>  And it doesn't provide any sort of link / context to the
> boot loader specification project or similar that explains the cases
> when a non-filename "initrd=" would reasonably (or unreasonably but
> happens in reality) be removed.

But it unreasonably happens as I learned the hard way :-)

Anyway, thanks Tom, I have no objections to whatever you all feel is
best to do with that comment. It was a failed attempt on my part to
explain the state of things :-)

ron