I have some questions about "ALLOWOPTIONS 0". [quote] ALLOWOPTIONS flag_val If flag_val is 0, the user is not allowed to specify any arguments on the kernel command line. The only options recognized are those specified in an APPEND) statement. The default is 1. [/quote] My understanding of the behavior of "ALLOWOPTIONS 0" is that unless I type-in a command that is exactly the same as the result of executing a label, then the command is "not accepted" ("not allowed"). 1_ Is my understanding correct? 2_ Are there any cases in which the resulting behavior is different from using the IMPLICIT directive (with respective labels)? While using 'ALLOWOPTIONS 0'... 3_ Should typing-in a 'label' (instead of the whole equivalent command) be accepted too? 4_ If I type-in a 'label' in the CLI, should additional options be allowed? 5_ If I press Tab in [vesa]menu.c32 and delete part of the command, is the resulting command allowed? 6_ How exactly is a command "not accepted"? What happens then? Is the entire command rejected? Or is the typed-in kernel executed without options? Or is the DEFAULT command executed (without options)? Or is the ONERROR command executed (without options)? Or is the first label found with "similar" options executed? Or...? The reason I am asking these questions is because I am testing "ALLOWOPTIONS 0" and I am slightly confused by the result. Knowing what I am supposed to expect would help me test the directive accordingly. TIA, Ady.
> I have some questions about "ALLOWOPTIONS 0". > > [quote] > ALLOWOPTIONS flag_val > If flag_val is 0, the user is not allowed to specify any arguments on > the kernel command line. The only options recognized are those > specified in an APPEND) statement. The default is 1. > [/quote] > > My understanding of the behavior of "ALLOWOPTIONS 0" is that unless I > type-in a command that is exactly the same as the result of executing > a label, then the command is "not accepted" ("not allowed"). > > 1_ Is my understanding correct? > > 2_ Are there any cases in which the resulting behavior is different > from using the IMPLICIT directive (with respective labels)? > > While using 'ALLOWOPTIONS 0'... > 3_ Should typing-in a 'label' (instead of the whole equivalent > command) be accepted too? > > 4_ If I type-in a 'label' in the CLI, should additional options be > allowed? > > 5_ If I press Tab in [vesa]menu.c32 and delete part of the command, > is the resulting command allowed? > > 6_ How exactly is a command "not accepted"? What happens then? Is > the entire command rejected? Or is the typed-in kernel executed > without options? Or is the DEFAULT command executed (without > options)? Or is the ONERROR command executed (without options)? Or is > the first label found with "similar" options executed? Or...? > > The reason I am asking these questions is because I am testing > "ALLOWOPTIONS 0" and I am slightly confused by the result. Knowing > what I am supposed to expect would help me test the directive > accordingly. > > TIA, > Ady.Anyone? Please?
My summary: reviewing ALLOWOPTIONS found reasons for further reviewing 'ALLOWOPTIONS' Op 2014-07-12 om 04:35 schreef Ady:> > > I have some questions about "ALLOWOPTIONS 0". > > > > [quote] > > ALLOWOPTIONS flag_val > > If flag_val is 0, the user is not allowed to specify any arguments on > > the kernel command line. The only options recognized are those > > specified in an APPEND) statement. The default is 1. > > [/quote] > > > > My understanding of the behavior of "ALLOWOPTIONS 0" is that unless I > > type-in a command that is exactly the same as the result of executing > > a label, then the command is "not accepted" ("not allowed"). > > > > 1_ Is my understanding correct?Yes, at least that is how I understand the provided [quote/]> > 2_ Are there any cases in which the resulting behavior is different > > from using the IMPLICIT directive (with respective labels)? > > > > While using 'ALLOWOPTIONS 0'... > > 3_ Should typing-in a 'label' (instead of the whole equivalent > > command) be accepted too?Yes, chosing a 'label' should be possible. Changing the behaviour of the label not.> > 4_ If I type-in a 'label' in the CLI, should additional options be > > allowed?See 3_> > 5_ If I press Tab in [vesa]menu.c32 and delete part of the command, > > is the resulting command allowed?I think the question is 'should it be allowed?'> > 6_ How exactly is a command "not accepted"? What happens then? Is > > the entire command rejected? Or is the typed-in kernel executed > > without options? Or is the DEFAULT command executed (without > > options)? Or is the ONERROR command executed (without options)? Or is > > the first label found with "similar" options executed? Or...?I don't know.> > The reason I am asking these questions is because I am testing > > "ALLOWOPTIONS 0" and I am slightly confused by the result. Knowing > > what I am supposed to expect would help me test the directive > > accordingly.I think Ady found some good reasons to review 'ALLOWOPTIONS' further.> > TIA, > > Ady. > > Anyone? Please?Sorry for not sending an acknowledge message like this more earlier. Groeten Geert Stappers -- Leven en laten leven