linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 6/8] CMDLINE: x86: convert to generic builtin command line

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <a2be781f-96b5-47d1-81fa-b20395ca293a@intel.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2025 14:55:07 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: "Daniel Walker (danielwa)" <danielwa@...co.com>
Cc: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
 Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>, Rob Herring
 <robh@...nel.org>,
 Daniel Gimpelevich <daniel@...pelevich.san-francisco.ca.us>,
 Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
 Pratyush Brahma <quic_pbrahma@...cinc.com>,
 Tomas Mudrunka <tomas.mudrunka@...il.com>,
 Sean Anderson <sean.anderson@...o.com>, "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
 "linux-mips@...r.kernel.org" <linux-mips@...r.kernel.org>,
 "linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
 Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
 Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
 "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
 "xe-linux-external(mailer list)" <xe-linux-external@...co.com>,
 Ruslan Ruslichenko <rruslich@...co.com>,
 Ruslan Bilovol <ruslan.bilovol@...il.com>,
 "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/8] CMDLINE: x86: convert to generic builtin command line

On 10/2/25 14:31, Daniel Walker (danielwa) wrote:
...
>> BTW, your series looks like a *really* good idea. Please don't let it
>> die. But you might want to trim it down a bit. I'd probably remove the
>> tests and the 'insert-sys-cert' changes to make it more approachable to
>> folks.
> 
> Since x86 is asking for it I think it would trim it down to just
> what is needed for x86. If I don't trim down the architectures it
> ropes in too many people anyway.

That's not a bad idea. Or, even if you can pick two amenable
architectures to start with it will make it really obvious that this is
useful. Two architectures means a *lot*, IMNHO. Two is a billion times
better than one.

> The biggest issue is that libstub would need to be modified, but
> I've never had any luck getting the libstub maintainer to review
> anything. I suspect he would ignore private email too, particularly
> from people he's doesn't know.

Are you talking about Ard?

	EXTENSIBLE FIRMWARE INTERFACE (EFI)
	M:      Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>
	L:      linux-efi@...r.kernel.org
	S:      Maintained
	...
	F:      drivers/firmware/efi/
	F:      include/linux/efi*.h

He's a pretty nice guy and has been active in this thread, so I'm kinda
surprised to hear you're having a hard time there. I'd just try asking
nicely. I'm pretty sure he's "ardb" on the usual IRC networks. IRC is a
great alternative when you're having problems getting your emails seen
in the normal email flood.

BTW, reading the changelog for libstub, it wasn't clear to me that
changes there were _required_ for the series to go forward. For
instance, is the x86 patch useful without libstub changes?