On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 2:00 PM, Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org> wrote: > On Wed, 1 Oct 2014 11:13:14 -0700 Andy Lutomirski <l...@amacapital.net> wrote: > >> On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 11:05 AM, <j...@joshtriplett.org> wrote: >> > On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 09:53:56PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote: >> >> I significantly prefer default N. Scripts that play with init= really >> >> don't want the fallback, and I can imagine contexts in which it could >> >> be a security problem. >> > >> > While I certainly would prefer the non-fallback behavior for init as >> > well, standard kernel practice has typically been to use "default y" for >> > previously built-in features that become configurable. And I'd >> > certainly prefer a compile-time configuration option like this (even >> > with default y) over a "strictinit" kernel command-line option. >> > >> >> Fair enough. >> >> So: "default y" for a release or two, then switch the default? Having >> default y will annoy virtme, though it's not the end of the world. >> Virtme is intended to work with more-or-less-normal kernels. >> > > Adding another Kconfig option is tiresome. What was wrong with strictinit=?
The consensus seems to be that adding a non-default option to get sensible behavior would be unfortunate. Also, I don't like strictinit=, since backwards-compatible setups will have to do init=foo strictinit=foo. My original proposal was init=foo strictinit. TBH, my preference would be to make strict mode unconditional. http://xkcd.com/1172/ --Andy -- Andy Lutomirski AMA Capital Management, LLC -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
