Mailing List Archive: 'implicit' doesn't prevent additional parameters?

'implicit' doesn't prevent additional parameters?

Apr 29, 2002, 9:16 AM

Post #1 of 4 (1038 views)

Hi,

just tried the 'implicit 0'-option with pxelinux (btw, 1.73Pre6 - works).
What I wanted is preventing tricksters to give additional parameters
on the commandline. It prevents giving something different from the
'label'-statement ('Could not find kernel image:..'), but if I give e.g.
linux init=/bin/sh
it gives me a root shell. It should have taken the 'append'-line
from the label statement and nothing else, or even complain about
some error loading the image - like above.

Have I missed something?

Regards,

Josef

______________________________________________________________________________
All inclusive! 100 MB Speicher, werbefrei, SMS günstiger, Wunschrufnummer, Events,
Preisvorteile und mehr unter http://club.web.de/?mc=021104

'implicit' doesn't prevent additional parameters? [ In reply to ]

hpa at zytor

Apr 29, 2002, 10:46 AM

Post #2 of 4 (995 views)

Permalink

Josef Siemes wrote:
> Hi,
>
> just tried the 'implicit 0'-option with pxelinux (btw, 1.73Pre6 - works).
> What I wanted is preventing tricksters to give additional parameters
> on the commandline. It prevents giving something different from the
> 'label'-statement ('Could not find kernel image:..'), but if I give e.g.
> linux init=/bin/sh
> it gives me a root shell. It should have taken the 'append'-line
> from the label statement and nothing else, or even complain about
> some error loading the image - like above.
>
> Have I missed something?
>

Yes -- the "implicit" statement doesn't prevent you from adding command
line parameters, it just keeps you from specifying a kernel that isn't
listed as a label.

-hpa

'implicit' doesn't prevent additional parameters? [ In reply to ]

jsiemes at web

Apr 30, 2002, 1:01 AM

Post #3 of 4 (988 views)

Permalink

Hi,

> Yes -- the "implicit" statement doesn't prevent you from adding command
> line parameters, it just keeps you from specifying a kernel that isn't
> listed as a label.

how much work would it be to prevent command line parameters? Say,
e.g. with 'implicit 2'? I consider this a useful feature.

Regards,

Josef
bv
________________________________________________________________
Keine verlorenen Lotto-Quittungen, keine vergessenen Gewinne mehr!
Beim WEB.DE Lottoservice: http://tippen2.web.de/?x=13

'implicit' doesn't prevent additional parameters? [ In reply to ]

hpa at zytor

Apr 30, 2002, 7:34 AM

Post #4 of 4 (999 views)

Permalink

Josef Siemes wrote:
> Hi,
>
>>Yes -- the "implicit" statement doesn't prevent you from adding command
>>line parameters, it just keeps you from specifying a kernel that isn't
>>listed as a label.
>
> how much work would it be to prevent command line parameters? Say,
> e.g. with 'implicit 2'? I consider this a useful feature.
>

Probably not too much work, but I'd have to look at the code. The
command-line parsing code (unlike the configuration-file parsing code)
isn't yet unified, so it probably has to wait for that. It was pretty
much next on my list anyway...

-hpa