linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] init/initramfs.c: allow asynchronous unpacking

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]

Date:   Thu, 11 Mar 2021 17:55:19 +0000
From:   Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, tglx@...utronix.de,
        mingo@...hat.com, bp@...en8.de, x86@...nel.org, hpa@...or.com,
        dwmw2@...radead.org, baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com, joro@...tes.org,
        iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org, andreas.noever@...il.com,
        michael.jamet@...el.com, mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com,
        YehezkelShB@...il.com, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Jessica Yu <jeyu@...nel.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] init/initramfs.c: allow asynchronous unpacking

On Tue, Mar 09, 2021 at 02:07:36PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 1:17 PM Rasmus Villemoes
> <linux@...musvillemoes.dk> wrote:
> >
> > So add an initramfs_async= kernel parameter, allowing the main init
> > process to proceed to handling device_initcall()s without waiting for
> > populate_rootfs() to finish.
> 
> I like this smaller second version of the patch, but am wondering why
> we even need the parameter.
> 
> It sounds mostly like a "maybe I didn't think of all cases" thing -
> and one that will mean that this code will not see a lot of actual
> test coverage..
> 
> And because of the lack of test coverage, I'd rather reverse the
> meaning, and have the async case on by default (without even the
> Kconfig option), and have the kernel command line purely as a "oops,
> it's buggy, easy to ask people to test if this is what ails them".

If we're going to set this as default it might be good to document on
init.h that components that need content in initramfs need the wait
call.

> What *can* happen early boot outside of firmware loading and usermodehelpers?

*In practice* the only thing I can think of at this time is races with
other rootfs_initcall() calls, granted ordering among these is done at
linker time, but I can't think of a issue with them:

arch/x86/kernel/pci-dma.c:rootfs_initcall(pci_iommu_init);
drivers/iommu/intel/irq_remapping.c:rootfs_initcall(ir_dev_scope_init);
drivers/mfd/sta2x11-mfd.c:rootfs_initcall(sta2x11_mfd_init);
drivers/thunderbolt/nhi.c:rootfs_initcall(nhi_init);

But Cc'ing the maintainers of these components just in case.

  Luis