On Sat, 12 Oct 2024 at 14:04, Jonathan Marek <jonathan@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On 10/12/24 3:54 AM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > > On Sat, 12 Oct 2024 at 00:52, Jonathan Marek <jonathan@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> Replace cmdline with CONFIG_CMDLINE when it should be used instead of > >> load_options. > >> > >> In the EXTEND case, it may be necessary to combine both CONFIG_CMDLINE and > >> load_options. In that case, keep the old behavior and print a warning about > >> the incorrect behavior. > >> > > > > The core kernel has its own handling for EXTEND/FORCE, so while we > > should parse it in the EFI stub to look for options that affect the > > stub's own behavior, we should not copy it into the command line that > > the stub provides to the core kernel. > > > > E.g., drivers/of/fdt.c takes the bootargs from the DT and combines > > them with CONFIG_CMDLINE. > > > > > > I'm aware of that - the replacement the commit message is referring to > is specifically for handle_cmdline_files() which this commit is modifying. > Ah ok - I missed that. This is the kind of context that I'd expect in a cover letter, i.e., that the command line handling is inconsistent, and that we obtain the command line from the loaded image twice. Also, the fact the initrd= handling and dtb= are special, because a) multiple initrd= arguments are processed in order, and the files concatenated, b) the filenames are consumed as UTF-16 as they are plugged into the file I/O protocols > Currently efistub completely ignores initrd= and dtb= options provided > through CONFIG_CMDLINE (handle_cmdline_files() only parses the EFI options) > Indeed. You haven't explained why this is a problem. initrd= and dtb= contain references to files in the file system, and this does not seem like something CONFIG_EXTEND was intended for. > For the EXTEND case, I didn't implement the full solution because its > more complex and EXTEND is not available on arm64 anyway, so I went with > just printing a warning instead. This code is shared between all architectures, so what arm64 does or does not support is irrelevant. Can you explain your use case please?
