linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] reboot: Fix variable assignments in type

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: <CAFnufp31YO9yTXVqgKNZGR9XXRKfGKM4Y4NLk+4_uXdoWa+G4w@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 13 Nov 2020 03:58:49 +0100
From:   Matteo Croce <mcroce@...ux.microsoft.com>
To:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Nathan Chancellor <natechancellor@...il.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
        Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...een.com>,
        Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
        Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>,
        Tyler Hicks <tyhicks@...ux.microsoft.com>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
        clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] reboot: Fix variable assignments in type_store

On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 3:46 AM Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 13 Nov 2020 02:38:18 +0100 Matteo Croce <mcroce@...ux.microsoft.com> wrote:
>
> > At this point, since 'pci' enables BOOT_CF9_FORCE type and
> > BOOT_CF9_SAFE is not user selectable, should I simply leave only
> > 'pci'?
> > This way, we'll have the same set of options for both sysfs and kernel cmdline.
>
> Well, you're the reboot expert ;)
>

So honored! :)

> But my $0.02 is yes, let's keep the command-line and sysfs interfaces
> in sync and cover it all in documentation.  It would of course be
> problematic to change the existing reboot= interface.
>
> I assume that means doing this?
>
> - #define BOOT_CF9_FORCE_STR     "cf9_force"
> + #define BOOT_CF9_FORCE_STR     "pci"
> - #define BOOT_CF9_SAFE_STR      "cf9_safe"

Either BOOT_PCI_STR or BOOT_CF9_FORCE_STR, I have no strong preference.

The syntax is 'pci' while the enum BOOT_CF9_FORCE, so we can't please both.

Regards,
-- 
per aspera ad upstream