linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] init: Make unknown command line param message clearer

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: <20211013125638.4nc4bnbzbeixfrii@halaneylaptop>
Date:   Wed, 13 Oct 2021 07:56:38 -0500
From:   Andrew Halaney <ahalaney@...hat.com>
To:     Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
Cc:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        bp@...e.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] init: Make unknown command line param message clearer

On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 05:18:32PM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> On 10/12/21 5:01 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Tue, 12 Oct 2021 16:35:23 -0500
> > Andrew Halaney <ahalaney@...hat.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > --- a/init/main.c
> > > +++ b/init/main.c
> > > @@ -925,6 +925,10 @@ static void __init print_unknown_bootoptions(void)
> > >   	for (p = &envp_init[2]; *p; p++)
> > >   		end += sprintf(end, " %s", *p);
> > > +	pr_notice("The kernel command line has unknown parameters. They are either\n");
> > > +	pr_notice("misspelled, not valid for the current kernel configuration,\n");
> > > +	pr_notice("or are meant for init but are not after the '--' delineator. They will\n");
> > > +	pr_notice("be passed to init along with those after '--' on the command line.\n");
> > >   	pr_notice("Unknown command line parameters:%s\n", unknown_options);
> > >   	memblock_free(unknown_options, len);
> > 
> > What about just changing it to simply say:
> > 
> > 	pr_notice("Unknown kernel command line parameters "%s", will be	passed to user space.\n",
> > 		  unknown_options);
> > 
> 
> Yes, that's much more palatable.
> 
> thanks.
> -- 
> ~Randy
> 

Heh, that's basically what the users suggested too but I wasn't the
biggest fan since I didn't think it highlighted the points I tried to
make. I guess I'm just too verbose :P

I'll spin a v2 with that considering everyone likes that form more.

Thanks,
Andrew