On Fri, Jul 29, 2022 at 05:35:26PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 25, 2022 at 04:21:11PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 25, 2022 at 03:55:27PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > > On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 11:32:02PM +0530, Jagdish Gediya wrote:
> > > > At many places in kernel, It is necessary to convert sysfs input
> > > > to corrosponding bool value e.g. "false" or "0" need to be converted
> > > > to bool false, "true" or "1" need to be converted to bool true,
> > > > places where such conversion is needed currently check the input
> > > > string manually, kstrtobool() can be utilized at such places but
> > > > currently it doesn't have support to accept "false"/"true".
> > > >
> > > > Add support to accept "false"/"true" as valid string in kstrtobool().
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Jagdish Gediya <jvgediya@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Reviewed-by: Matthew Wilcox (Oracle) <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > I've just spotted that this broke arm64's "rodata=full" command line option,
> >
> > That isn't a documented option.
> >
> > rodata= [KNL]
> > on Mark read-only kernel memory as read-only (default).
> > off Leave read-only kernel memory writable for debugging.
> >
> > Hopefully this is an object lesson in why you need to update the
> > documentation when you extend a feature.
> >
> > > since "full" gets parsed as 'f' = FALSE, when previously that would have been
> > > rejected. So anyone passing "rodata=full" on the command line will have rodata
> > > disabled, which is not what they wanted.
> > >
> > > The current state of things is a bit messy (we prase the option twice because
> > > arch code needs it early), and we can probably fix that with some refactoring,
> > > but I do wonder if we actually want to open up the sysfs parsing to accept
> > > anything *beginning* with [tTfF] rather than the full "true" and "false"
> > > strings as previously, or whether it's worth reverting this for now in case
> > > anything else is affected.
> >
> > Well, that's going to break people who've started using the new option.
> > As a quick fix, how about only allowing either "f\0" or "fa"?
>
> I think we need to be more strict in kstrtobool(), i.e. 'f\0' ('t\0') and 'fal'
> ('tru') perhaps?
lol what?
the only way to be strict is to accept "0" and "1" with optional
newline and delete all the rubbish entirely.
