[PATCH v3 00/24] Remove COMMAND_LINE_SIZE from uapi

[Heiko Carstens]

On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 08:49:01AM +0100, Alexandre Ghiti wrote:
> This all came up in the context of increasing COMMAND_LINE_SIZE in the
> RISC-V port.  In theory that's a UABI break, as COMMAND_LINE_SIZE is the
> maximum length of /proc/cmdline and userspace could staticly rely on
> that to be correct.
> 
> Usually I wouldn't mess around with changing this sort of thing, but
> PowerPC increased it with a5980d064fe2 ("powerpc: Bump COMMAND_LINE_SIZE
> to 2048").  There are also a handful of examples of COMMAND_LINE_SIZE
> increasing, but they're from before the UAPI split so I'm not quite sure
> what that means: e5a6a1c90948 ("powerpc: derive COMMAND_LINE_SIZE from
> asm-generic"), 684d2fd48e71 ("[S390] kernel: Append scpdata to kernel
> boot command line"), 22242681cff5 ("MIPS: Extend COMMAND_LINE_SIZE"),
> and 2b74b85693c7 ("sh: Derive COMMAND_LINE_SIZE from
> asm-generic/setup.h.").
> 
> It seems to me like COMMAND_LINE_SIZE really just shouldn't have been
> part of the uapi to begin with, and userspace should be able to handle
> /proc/cmdline of whatever length it turns out to be.  I don't see any
> references to COMMAND_LINE_SIZE anywhere but Linux via a quick Google
> search, but that's not really enough to consider it unused on my end.
> 
> The feedback on the v1 seemed to indicate that COMMAND_LINE_SIZE really
> shouldn't be part of uapi, so this now touches all the ports.  I've
> tried to split this all out and leave it bisectable, but I haven't
> tested it all that aggressively.

Just to confirm this assumption a bit more: that's actually the same
conclusion that we ended up with when commit 3da0243f906a ("s390: make
command line configurable") went upstream.