Re: [PATCH] [RFC] Taint the kernel for unsafe module options

[Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>]

Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch> writes:
> Users just love to set random piles of options since surely enabling
> all the experimental stuff helps. Later on we get bug reports because
> it all fell apart.
>
> Even more fun when it's labelled a regression when some change only
> just made the feature possible (e.g. stolen memory fixes suddenly
> making fbc possible).
>
> Make it clear that users are playing with fire here. In drm/i915 all
> these options follow the same pattern of using -1 as the per-machine
> default, and any other value being used for force the parameter.
>
> Adding a pile of cc's to solicit input and figure out whether this
> would be generally useful - this quick rfc is just for drm/i915.

If this is a good idea, you can write a macro module_param_unsafe_named
which is a general wrapper.

> -module_param_named(modeset, i915.modeset, int, 0400);

Wait, WTF?  Why do you prefix i915 here manually?  That means that
the commandline parameter would be "i915.i915.modeset=" and the
module parameter would be "i915.modeset="...

Confused,
Rusty.