From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org
To: "Wilson Felipe Pereira" <wfelipe@google.com>
Cc: "Alexander Gordeev" <agordeev@linux.ibm.com>,
"Heiko Carstens" <hca@linux.ibm.com>,
"Vasily Gorbik" <gor@linux.ibm.com>,
linux-s390@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] init/Kconfig: generalize config COMMAND_LINE_SIZE to all architectures
Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2026 06:26:03 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260806062604.76A9F1F000E9@smtp.kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260806061429.474992-2-wfelipe@google.com>
Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 5 potential issue(s) to consider:
- [High] Moving COMMAND_LINE_SIZE to init/Kconfig removes the minimum size limit of 896 bytes for s390, allowing legacy bootloaders to overflow the parmarea and corrupt the kernel .text section.
- [Medium] The newly introduced COMMAND_LINE_SIZE Kconfig option is silently bypassed and acts as a placebo for all architectures except s390.
- [Medium] Making COMMAND_LINE_SIZE globally configurable via Kconfig conflicts with its static definition in userspace-exported UAPI headers.
- [Medium] The Kconfig default definition for COMMAND_LINE_SIZE references the non-existent symbol 'UM'.
- [Medium] The default value of CONFIG_COMMAND_LINE_SIZE for RISC-V is incorrectly set to 1024, which is a reduction from its existing hardcoded size of 2048.
--
--- Patch [1]: [PATCH 1/3] init/Kconfig: generalize config COMMAND_LINE_SIZE to all architectures ---
commit 331242b120be7dde8a2decc92398462a27944ed5
Author: Wilson Felipe Pereira <wfelipe@google.com>
Subject: init/Kconfig: generalize config COMMAND_LINE_SIZE to all architectures
This commit moves CONFIG_COMMAND_LINE_SIZE from s390 to init/Kconfig to
allow all architectures to configure their maximum command line length. It
also sets default values intended to match the existing hardcoded sizes.
[ ... ]
> diff --git a/init/Kconfig b/init/Kconfig
> index 5230d4879b1c8..c581817966ee2 100644
> --- a/init/Kconfig
> +++ b/init/Kconfig
> @@ -1566,6 +1566,18 @@ config BOOT_CONFIG_EMBED_FILE
> This bootconfig will be used if there is no initrd or no other
> bootconfig in the initrd.
>
> +config COMMAND_LINE_SIZE
[Severity: Medium]
Will this Kconfig option actually be used by other architectures?
For example, in arch/x86/include/asm/setup.h, COMMAND_LINE_SIZE is still
defined as a hardcoded macro:
#define COMMAND_LINE_SIZE 2048
Because the C preprocessor will continue to use the hardcoded macro rather
than the CONFIG_COMMAND_LINE_SIZE Kbuild variable, won't any changes made
by users in menuconfig be silently ignored on architectures other than s390?
[Severity: Medium]
Furthermore, does making this globally configurable conflict with its static
definition in userspace-exported UAPI headers?
Many architectures expose this as a hardcoded constant in their
include/uapi/asm/setup.h headers:
arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/setup.h:
#define COMMAND_LINE_SIZE 2048
Since UAPI headers cannot depend on kernel build configurations (they do
not include <generated/autoconf.h>), if an architecture maintainer tries to
fix the bypass by replacing the hardcoded value with the Kconfig variable,
wouldn't that break the userspace ABI for tools like kexec-tools which rely
on the UAPI header?
> + int "Maximum size of kernel command line"
> + default 4096 if S390 || LOONGARCH || MIPS || UM
[Severity: Medium]
Is UM the correct Kconfig symbol here?
The User-Mode Linux architecture uses the config symbol UML. If UM
evaluates to false because it does not exist, won't User-Mode Linux builds
silently fall back to the incorrect default of 512 instead of 4096?
> + default 2048 if X86 || ARM64 || POWERPC || SPARC64
> + default 1024 if ARM || PARISC || RISCV
[Severity: Medium]
The commit message mentions adding defaults to keep values unchanged, but
is 1024 the correct default for RISC-V?
Checking arch/riscv/include/uapi/asm/setup.h shows that the current size
is 2048. If this Kconfig option is respected, would this cause a regression
by halving the allowed command line size for RISC-V?
> + default 256 if ALPHA || ARC || M68K || MICROBLAZE || SPARC32 || XTENSA
> + default 512
> + range 256 1048576
[Severity: High]
Does lowering the minimum range to 256 introduce memory corruption risks
for s390?
The previous range in arch/s390/Kconfig enforced a minimum of 896 bytes. On
s390, the command_line buffer is placed at the end of struct parmarea, and
the executable .text section immediately follows it in the linker script:
arch/s390/boot/vmlinux.lds.S:
.text : {
_text = .; /* Text */
If an administrator configures a small size like 256, and a legacy
bootloader writes up to the historical 896 bytes into the parmarea,
wouldn't it overrun the buffer and corrupt the .text section?
> + help
> + This allows you to specify the maximum length of the kernel command
> + line.
--
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260806061429.474992-1-wfelipe@google.com?part=1
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-08-06 6:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-08-06 6:14 [PATCH 0/3] init/Kconfig: generalize config COMMAND_LINE_SIZE Wilson Felipe Pereira
2026-08-06 6:14 ` [PATCH 1/3] init/Kconfig: generalize config COMMAND_LINE_SIZE to all architectures Wilson Felipe Pereira
2026-08-06 6:26 ` sashiko-bot [this message]
2026-08-06 6:14 ` [PATCH 2/3] arch: use CONFIG_COMMAND_LINE_SIZE across " Wilson Felipe Pereira
2026-08-06 6:25 ` sashiko-bot
2026-08-06 6:14 ` [PATCH 3/3] init/Kconfig: make config INIT_ENV_ARG_LIMIT user-configurable Wilson Felipe Pereira
2026-08-06 6:29 ` sashiko-bot
2026-08-06 22:57 ` [PATCH 0/3] init/Kconfig: generalize config COMMAND_LINE_SIZE Andrew Morton
[not found] <20260806060556.451370-1-wfelipe@google.com>
2026-08-06 6:05 ` [PATCH 1/3] init/Kconfig: generalize config COMMAND_LINE_SIZE to all architectures Wilson Felipe Pereira
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20260806062604.76A9F1F000E9@smtp.kernel.org \
--to=sashiko-bot@kernel.org \
--cc=agordeev@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=gor@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=hca@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-s390@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=wfelipe@google.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox