Re: THE LINUX/I386 BOOT PROTOCOL - Breaking the 256 limit

["H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>]

Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
> 
> Hello Peter, I've written a reply before but got no response...
> 
> The idea of putting arguments in initramfs is not practical, since the 
> whole idea is to have the same image of system and affecting its 
> behavior using the boot loader...
> 

No, you're wrong.  The boot loader can synthesize an initramfs.

> I would like to push forward the idea to extend the command-line size...
> 
> All we need for start is an updated version of the "THE LINUX/I386 BOOT 
> PROTOCOL" document that states that in the 2.02+  protocol the boot 
> loader should set cmd_line_ptr to a pointer to a null terminated string 
> without any size restriction, specifying that the kernel will read as 
> much as it can.

Already pushed to Andrew.  I will follow it up with a patch to extend 
the command line, at least to 512.

> After I get this update, I will try to work with GRUB and LILO so that 
> they will fix their implementation. Currently they claim that they 
> understand that they should truncate the string to 256.
> 
> After that I will provide my simple  patch for setting the maximum size 
> the kernel allocates in the configuration.
> 
> BTW: Do you know why the COMMAND_LINE_SIZE constant is located in two 
> separate include files?

No, I don't.  It could be because one is included from assembly code in 
the i386 architecture.

	-hpa