Commit 16203a7a9422 ("initmpfs: make rootfs use tmpfs when CONFIG_TMPFS
enabled") introduced using tmpfs as the rootfs filesystem. The use of
tmpfs is limited to systems that do not specify "root=" on the boot
command line.
Without the check "!saved_root_name[0]", rootfs uses tmpfs. As there
must be a valid reason for this check, this patch introduces a new boot
command line option named "noramfs" to force rootfs to use tmpfs.
Signed-off-by: Mimi Zohar <[email protected]>
---
Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt | 2 ++
init/do_mounts.c | 15 +++++++++++++--
2 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt b/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt
index 6571fbfdb2a1..fd82df2ff150 100644
--- a/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt
+++ b/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt
@@ -2733,6 +2733,8 @@
nopcid [X86-64] Disable the PCID cpu feature.
+ noramfs Don't use ramfs for rootfs, use tmpfs.
+
norandmaps Don't use address space randomization. Equivalent to
echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/randomize_va_space
diff --git a/init/do_mounts.c b/init/do_mounts.c
index 7cf4f6dafd5f..74d8bfcd1294 100644
--- a/init/do_mounts.c
+++ b/init/do_mounts.c
@@ -315,6 +315,16 @@ static int __init root_data_setup(char *str)
return 1;
}
+static bool force_tmpfs;
+static int __init force_tmpfs_setup(char *str)
+{
+ if (*str)
+ return 0;
+ force_tmpfs = true;
+ return 1;
+
+}
+
static char * __initdata root_fs_names;
static int __init fs_names_setup(char *str)
{
@@ -332,6 +342,7 @@ static int __init root_delay_setup(char *str)
__setup("rootflags=", root_data_setup);
__setup("rootfstype=", fs_names_setup);
__setup("rootdelay=", root_delay_setup);
+__setup("noramfs", force_tmpfs_setup);
static void __init get_fs_names(char *page)
{
@@ -632,8 +643,8 @@ int __init init_rootfs(void)
if (err)
return err;
- if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_TMPFS) && !saved_root_name[0] &&
- (!root_fs_names || strstr(root_fs_names, "tmpfs"))) {
+ if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_TMPFS) && (force_tmpfs || (!saved_root_name[0] &&
+ (!root_fs_names || strstr(root_fs_names, "tmpfs"))))) {
err = shmem_init();
is_tmpfs = true;
} else {
--
2.7.5
On 01/30/2018 03:46 PM, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> Commit 16203a7a9422 ("initmpfs: make rootfs use tmpfs when CONFIG_TMPFS
> enabled") introduced using tmpfs as the rootfs filesystem. The use of
> tmpfs is limited to systems that do not specify "root=" on the boot
> command line.
>
> Without the check "!saved_root_name[0]", rootfs uses tmpfs. As there
> must be a valid reason for this check, this patch introduces a new boot
> command line option named "noramfs" to force rootfs to use tmpfs.
>
> Signed-off-by: Mimi Zohar <[email protected]>
How about just:
diff --git a/init/do_mounts.c b/init/do_mounts.c
index 7cf4f6d..af66ede 100644
--- a/init/do_mounts.c
+++ b/init/do_mounts.c
@@ -632,8 +632,8 @@ int __init init_rootfs(void)
if (err)
return err;
- if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_TMPFS) && !saved_root_name[0] &&
- (!root_fs_names || strstr(root_fs_names, "tmpfs"))) {
+ if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_TMPFS) && (!saved_root_name[0] ||
+ !strcmp(saved_root_name, "tmpfs"))) {
err = shmem_init();
is_tmpfs = true;
} else {
(Obviously-signed-off-by: Rob Landley <[email protected]>)
I.E. if you somehow just can't stop yourself from specifying root= when
using rootfs, have "root=tmpfs" do what you want.
(The old "I configured in tmpfs and am using rootfs but I want that rootfs
to be ramfs, not tmpfs" code doesn't seem to be a real-world concern, does
it?)
> ---
> Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt | 2 ++
> init/do_mounts.c | 15 +++++++++++++--
> 2 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
I suppose I should do a documentation update too. Lemme send a proper one
after work...
Rob
P.S. While I'm at it, I've meant to wire up rootflags= so you can specify
a memory limit other than 50% forever, I should do that too. And resend
my "make DEVTMPFS_MOUNT apply to initramfs" patch (with the debian bug
workaround)...
On Wed, 2018-01-31 at 13:32 -0600, Rob Landley wrote:
> On 01/30/2018 03:46 PM, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> > Commit 16203a7a9422 ("initmpfs: make rootfs use tmpfs when CONFIG_TMPFS
> > enabled") introduced using tmpfs as the rootfs filesystem. The use of
> > tmpfs is limited to systems that do not specify "root=" on the boot
> > command line.
> >
> > Without the check "!saved_root_name[0]", rootfs uses tmpfs. As there
> > must be a valid reason for this check, this patch introduces a new boot
> > command line option named "noramfs" to force rootfs to use tmpfs.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Mimi Zohar <[email protected]>
>
> How about just:
>
> diff --git a/init/do_mounts.c b/init/do_mounts.c
> index 7cf4f6d..af66ede 100644
> --- a/init/do_mounts.c
> +++ b/init/do_mounts.c
> @@ -632,8 +632,8 @@ int __init init_rootfs(void)
> if (err)
> return err;
>
> - if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_TMPFS) && !saved_root_name[0] &&
> - (!root_fs_names || strstr(root_fs_names, "tmpfs"))) {
> + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_TMPFS) && (!saved_root_name[0] ||
> + !strcmp(saved_root_name, "tmpfs"))) {
> err = shmem_init();
> is_tmpfs = true;
> } else {
>
> (Obviously-signed-off-by: Rob Landley <[email protected]>)
>
> I.E. if you somehow just can't stop yourself from specifying root= when
> using rootfs, have "root=tmpfs" do what you want.
I tried overloading "rootfstype=tmpfs", before posting this work
around, but for some reason that just doesn't work.
>
> (The old "I configured in tmpfs and am using rootfs but I want that rootfs
> to be ramfs, not tmpfs" code doesn't seem to be a real-world concern, does
> it?)
I must be missing something. Which systems don't specify "root=" on
the boot command line. If we want to include and restore xattrs,
there needs to be a way of using tmpfs.
Mimi
>
> > ---
> > Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt | 2 ++
> > init/do_mounts.c | 15 +++++++++++++--
> > 2 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> I suppose I should do a documentation update too. Lemme send a proper one
> after work...
>
> Rob
>
> P.S. While I'm at it, I've meant to wire up rootflags= so you can specify
> a memory limit other than 50% forever, I should do that too. And resend
> my "make DEVTMPFS_MOUNT apply to initramfs" patch (with the debian bug
> workaround)...
>
On 01/31/2018 04:07 PM, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> On Wed, 2018-01-31 at 13:32 -0600, Rob Landley wrote:>> (The old "I configured in tmpfs and am using rootfs but I want that
rootfs
>> to be ramfs, not tmpfs" code doesn't seem to be a real-world concern, does
>> it?)
>
> I must be missing something. Which systems don't specify "root=" on
> the boot command line.
Any system using initrd or initramfs?
I have one at https://github.com/landley/mkroot that doesn't, for
example. It's 600 lines of bash that builds simple Linux systems for a
bunch of different architectures, each with a qemu wrapper to boot it to
a shell prompt. And yes, it's using tmpfs for its initramfs, you can
tell because "grep rootfs /proc/mounts" gives a size. That's also where
I tested the patch I sent you.
The root= option specifies the filesystem to mount OVER rootfs. I.E.
it's the fallback root filesystem to mount when initramfs doesn't
contain an executable /init that can become PID 1. If you DO have an
/init in rootfs which the kernel manages to launch as PID 1, the kernel
code never reaches the part that uses the root= argument.
(Look for the call to prepare_namespace() in init/main.c, notice how
it's only called if it can't _already_ find "/init".)
That's why the test I added for initramfs vs initmpfs was "did they
specify root=", because if they did it means they're telling the kernel
what to mount over rootfs, so they're not staying in rootfs. That's what
that argument MEANS. They're telling init/main.c what fallback
filesystem to mount over rootfs _after_ failing to find /init in rootfs,
therefore they're not keeping rootfs as their root filesystem for userspace.
That said, a lot of people don't understand how this works, and they set
root= to things like /dev/ram when using initrd because "we must set
this knob to something, this is something, therefore we must set this
knob to it". The fact setting root=/dev/random would have the exact same
effect doesn't seem to bother them, they had Done It and It Worked,
therefore it was the Right Thing To Do. QED.
The patch last message was me going "alright, if people can't NOT
twiddle the knob, even when doing it breaks things in an immediate and
obvious way, and a big DO NOT TOUCH sign won't dissuade them, just give
the knob an explicit 'off' setting that literally does the same thing as
not touching it at all would".
Your solution was to add a safety catch for the knob, which is edging
into Rube Goldberg territory if you ask me.
> If we want to include and restore xattrs,
> there needs to be a way of using tmpfs.
Yes, using tmpfs for initramfs is useful, that's why I submitted patches
to hook it up back in 2013.
(Personally I find "cat /dev/zero > /filename" _not_ hard locking your
system instantly the most compelling feature. Although I believe what
motivated my initmpfs patches way back when was somebody wanting to
install an rpm into intramfs and the installer failing because ramfs
hasn't got a size so "df" always returns zero.)
> Mimi
Rob
On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 05:48:20PM -0600, Rob Landley wrote:
> On 01/31/2018 04:07 PM, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> > On Wed, 2018-01-31 at 13:32 -0600, Rob Landley wrote:>> (The old "I configured in tmpfs and am using rootfs but I want that
> rootfs
> >> to be ramfs, not tmpfs" code doesn't seem to be a real-world concern, does
> >> it?)
> >
> > I must be missing something. Which systems don't specify "root=" on
> > the boot command line.
>
> Any system using initrd or initramfs?
>
Don't a lot of initramfs setups use root= to tell the initramfs which
actual root file system to switch to after early boot?
On Wed, 2018-01-31 at 21:03 -0500, Arvind Sankar wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 05:48:20PM -0600, Rob Landley wrote:
> > On 01/31/2018 04:07 PM, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2018-01-31 at 13:32 -0600, Rob Landley wrote:>> (The old "I configured in tmpfs and am using rootfs but I want that
> > rootfs
> > >> to be ramfs, not tmpfs" code doesn't seem to be a real-world concern, does
> > >> it?)
> > >
> > > I must be missing something. Which systems don't specify "root=" on
> > > the boot command line.
> >
> > Any system using initrd or initramfs?
> >
>
> Don't a lot of initramfs setups use root= to tell the initramfs which
> actual root file system to switch to after early boot?
With your patch and specifying "root=tmpfs", dracut is complaining:
dracut: FATAL: Don't know how to handle 'root=tmpfs'
dracut: refusing to continue
Mimi
On 01/31/2018 10:22 PM, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> On Wed, 2018-01-31 at 21:03 -0500, Arvind Sankar wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 05:48:20PM -0600, Rob Landley wrote:
>>> On 01/31/2018 04:07 PM, Mimi Zohar wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 2018-01-31 at 13:32 -0600, Rob Landley wrote:>> (The old "I configured in tmpfs and am using rootfs but I want that
>>> rootfs
>>>>> to be ramfs, not tmpfs" code doesn't seem to be a real-world concern, does
>>>>> it?)
>>>>
>>>> I must be missing something. Which systems don't specify "root=" on
>>>> the boot command line.
>>>
>>> Any system using initrd or initramfs?
>>>
>>
>> Don't a lot of initramfs setups use root= to tell the initramfs which
>> actual root file system to switch to after early boot?
You mean the option that _isn't_ passed through as an environment
variable (the way ROOT= would be) so you have to parse /proc/cmdline to
to see if it was passed in?
If you really, really, really, really, really want to double down on the
"no, this is the button, it doesn't do what I thought but I will MAKE it
work" obsession, sure.
> With your patch and specifying "root=tmpfs", dracut is complaining:
>
> dracut: FATAL: Don't know how to handle 'root=tmpfs'
> dracut: refusing to continue
[googles]... I do not understand why this package exists.
If you're switching to another root filesystem, using a tool that
wikipedia[citation needed] says has no purpose but to switch to another
root filesystem, (so let's reproduce the kernel infrastructure in
userspace while leaving it the kernel too)... why do you need initramfs
to be tmpfs? You're using it for half a second, then discarding it,
what's the point of it being tmpfs?
Sigh. If people are ok with having rootfs just be tmpfs whenever tmpfs
is configured in, even when you're then going to overmount it with
something else like you're doing, let's just _remove_ the test. If it
can be tmpfs, have it be tmpfs.
Rob
On Thu, 2018-02-01 at 09:20 -0600, Rob Landley wrote:
> > With your patch and specifying "root=tmpfs", dracut is complaining:
> >
> > dracut: FATAL: Don't know how to handle 'root=tmpfs'
> > dracut: refusing to continue
>
> [googles]... I do not understand why this package exists.
>
> If you're switching to another root filesystem, using a tool that
> wikipedia[citation needed] says has no purpose but to switch to another
> root filesystem, (so let's reproduce the kernel infrastructure in
> userspace while leaving it the kernel too)... why do you need initramfs
> to be tmpfs? You're using it for half a second, then discarding it,
> what's the point of it being tmpfs?
Unlike the kernel image which is signed by the distros, the initramfs
doesn't come signed, because it is built on the target system. Even
if the initramfs did come signed, it is beneficial to measure and
appraise the individual files in the initramfs.
> Sigh. If people are ok with having rootfs just be tmpfs whenever tmpfs
> is configured in, even when you're then going to overmount it with
> something else like you're doing, let's just _remove_ the test. If it
> can be tmpfs, have it be tmpfs.
Very much appreciated!
thanks,
Mimi
On 02/01/2018 09:55 AM, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> On Thu, 2018-02-01 at 09:20 -0600, Rob Landley wrote:
>
>>> With your patch and specifying "root=tmpfs", dracut is complaining:
>>>
>>> dracut: FATAL: Don't know how to handle 'root=tmpfs'
>>> dracut: refusing to continue
>>
>> [googles]... I do not understand why this package exists.
>>
>> If you're switching to another root filesystem, using a tool that
>> wikipedia[citation needed] says has no purpose but to switch to another
>> root filesystem, (so let's reproduce the kernel infrastructure in
>> userspace while leaving it the kernel too)... why do you need initramfs
>> to be tmpfs? You're using it for half a second, then discarding it,
>> what's the point of it being tmpfs?
>
> Unlike the kernel image which is signed by the distros, the initramfs
> doesn't come signed, because it is built on the target system. Even
> if the initramfs did come signed, it is beneficial to measure and
> appraise the individual files in the initramfs.
You can still shoot yourself in the foot with tmpfs. People mount a /run
and a /tmp and then as a normal user you can go
https://twitter.com/landley/status/959103235305951233 and maybe the
default should be a little more clever there...
I'll throw it on the todo heap. :)
>> Sigh. If people are ok with having rootfs just be tmpfs whenever tmpfs
>> is configured in, even when you're then going to overmount it with
>> something else like you're doing, let's just _remove_ the test. If it
>> can be tmpfs, have it be tmpfs.
>
> Very much appreciated!
Not yet tested, but something like the attached? (Sorry for the
half-finished doc changes in there, I'm at work and have a 5 minute
break. I can test properly this evening if you don't get to it...)
Rob
On Thu, 2018-02-01 at 11:09 -0600, Rob Landley wrote:
> On 02/01/2018 09:55 AM, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> > On Thu, 2018-02-01 at 09:20 -0600, Rob Landley wrote:
> >
> >>> With your patch and specifying "root=tmpfs", dracut is complaining:
> >>>
> >>> dracut: FATAL: Don't know how to handle 'root=tmpfs'
> >>> dracut: refusing to continue
> >>
> >> [googles]... I do not understand why this package exists.
> >>
> >> If you're switching to another root filesystem, using a tool that
> >> wikipedia[citation needed] says has no purpose but to switch to another
> >> root filesystem, (so let's reproduce the kernel infrastructure in
> >> userspace while leaving it the kernel too)... why do you need initramfs
> >> to be tmpfs? You're using it for half a second, then discarding it,
> >> what's the point of it being tmpfs?
> >
> > Unlike the kernel image which is signed by the distros, the initramfs
> > doesn't come signed, because it is built on the target system. Even
> > if the initramfs did come signed, it is beneficial to measure and
> > appraise the individual files in the initramfs.
>
> You can still shoot yourself in the foot with tmpfs. People mount a /run
> and a /tmp and then as a normal user you can go
> https://twitter.com/landley/status/959103235305951233 and maybe the
> default should be a little more clever there...
>
> I'll throw it on the todo heap. :)
>
> >> Sigh. If people are ok with having rootfs just be tmpfs whenever tmpfs
> >> is configured in, even when you're then going to overmount it with
> >> something else like you're doing, let's just _remove_ the test. If it
> >> can be tmpfs, have it be tmpfs.
> >
> > Very much appreciated!
>
> Not yet tested, but something like the attached? (Sorry for the
> half-finished doc changes in there, I'm at work and have a 5 minute
> break. I can test properly this evening if you don't get to it...)
Yes, rootfs is being mounted as tmpfs.
Mimi
Quoting Mimi Zohar (2018-02-01 13:51:52)
> On Thu, 2018-02-01 at 11:09 -0600, Rob Landley wrote:
> > On 02/01/2018 09:55 AM, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2018-02-01 at 09:20 -0600, Rob Landley wrote:
> > >
> > >>> With your patch and specifying "root=tmpfs", dracut is complaining:
> > >>>
> > >>> dracut: FATAL: Don't know how to handle 'root=tmpfs'
> > >>> dracut: refusing to continue
> > >>
> > >> [googles]... I do not understand why this package exists.
> > >>
> > >> If you're switching to another root filesystem, using a tool that
> > >> wikipedia[citation needed] says has no purpose but to switch to another
> > >> root filesystem, (so let's reproduce the kernel infrastructure in
> > >> userspace while leaving it the kernel too)... why do you need initramfs
> > >> to be tmpfs? You're using it for half a second, then discarding it,
> > >> what's the point of it being tmpfs?
> > >
> > > Unlike the kernel image which is signed by the distros, the initramfs
> > > doesn't come signed, because it is built on the target system. Even
> > > if the initramfs did come signed, it is beneficial to measure and
> > > appraise the individual files in the initramfs.
> >
> > You can still shoot yourself in the foot with tmpfs. People mount a /run
> > and a /tmp and then as a normal user you can go
> > https://twitter.com/landley/status/959103235305951233 and maybe the
> > default should be a little more clever there...
> >
> > I'll throw it on the todo heap. :)
> >
> > >> Sigh. If people are ok with having rootfs just be tmpfs whenever tmpfs
> > >> is configured in, even when you're then going to overmount it with
> > >> something else like you're doing, let's just _remove_ the test. If it
> > >> can be tmpfs, have it be tmpfs.
> > >
> > > Very much appreciated!
> >
> > Not yet tested, but something like the attached? (Sorry for the
> > half-finished doc changes in there, I'm at work and have a 5 minute
> > break. I can test properly this evening if you don't get to it...)
>
> Yes, rootfs is being mounted as tmpfs.
I don't think you can unconditionally replace ramfs with initramfs by
default. Their behavior is different in some cases (e.g. pivot_root vs
switch_root) and it can break many systems that expect ramfs by default.
On 01/31/2018 10:22 PM, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> On Wed, 2018-01-31 at 21:03 -0500, Arvind Sankar wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 05:48:20PM -0600, Rob Landley wrote:
>>> On 01/31/2018 04:07 PM, Mimi Zohar wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 2018-01-31 at 13:32 -0600, Rob Landley wrote:>> (The old "I configured in tmpfs and am using rootfs but I want that
>>> rootfs
>>>>> to be ramfs, not tmpfs" code doesn't seem to be a real-world concern, does
>>>>> it?)
>>>>
>>>> I must be missing something. Which systems don't specify "root=" on
>>>> the boot command line.
>>>
>>> Any system using initrd or initramfs?
>>>
>>
>> Don't a lot of initramfs setups use root= to tell the initramfs which
>> actual root file system to switch to after early boot?
>
> With your patch and specifying "root=tmpfs", dracut is complaining:
>
> dracut: FATAL: Don't know how to handle 'root=tmpfs'
> dracut: refusing to continue
"The kernel can't break this buggy userspace package."
"The kernel must give access to a new feature to this buggy userspace
package".
I think kernel policy asks you to pick one, but I could be wrong...
Rob
On 02/01/2018 04:41 PM, Taras Kondratiuk wrote:
> Quoting Mimi Zohar (2018-02-01 13:51:52)
>> On Thu, 2018-02-01 at 11:09 -0600, Rob Landley wrote:
>>> On 02/01/2018 09:55 AM, Mimi Zohar wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 2018-02-01 at 09:20 -0600, Rob Landley wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> With your patch and specifying "root=tmpfs", dracut is complaining:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> dracut: FATAL: Don't know how to handle 'root=tmpfs'
>>>>>> dracut: refusing to continue
>>>>>
>>>>> [googles]... I do not understand why this package exists.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you're switching to another root filesystem, using a tool that
>>>>> wikipedia[citation needed] says has no purpose but to switch to another
>>>>> root filesystem, (so let's reproduce the kernel infrastructure in
>>>>> userspace while leaving it the kernel too)... why do you need initramfs
>>>>> to be tmpfs? You're using it for half a second, then discarding it,
>>>>> what's the point of it being tmpfs?
>>>>
>>>> Unlike the kernel image which is signed by the distros, the initramfs
>>>> doesn't come signed, because it is built on the target system. Even
>>>> if the initramfs did come signed, it is beneficial to measure and
>>>> appraise the individual files in the initramfs.
>>>
>>> You can still shoot yourself in the foot with tmpfs. People mount a /run
>>> and a /tmp and then as a normal user you can go
>>> https://twitter.com/landley/status/959103235305951233 and maybe the
>>> default should be a little more clever there...
>>>
>>> I'll throw it on the todo heap. :)
>>>
>>>>> Sigh. If people are ok with having rootfs just be tmpfs whenever tmpfs
>>>>> is configured in, even when you're then going to overmount it with
>>>>> something else like you're doing, let's just _remove_ the test. If it
>>>>> can be tmpfs, have it be tmpfs.
>>>>
>>>> Very much appreciated!
>>>
>>> Not yet tested, but something like the attached? (Sorry for the
>>> half-finished doc changes in there, I'm at work and have a 5 minute
>>> break. I can test properly this evening if you don't get to it...)
>>
>> Yes, rootfs is being mounted as tmpfs.
>
> I don't think you can unconditionally replace ramfs with initramfs by
> default. Their behavior is different in some cases (e.g. pivot_root vs
> switch_root)
Both are switch_root, you can't pivot_root off of either one. (Yes, I
hit that bug and reported it, and they fixed it, back in the day...
http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/busybox/2006-March/053529.html )
> and it can break many systems that expect ramfs by default.
The use case I told Mimi about off-list (since they stopped cc:ing the
list in one of their replies but the conversation continued) was the guy
who was extracting an initramfs bigger than 50% of system memory, which
worked with initramfs but failed with initmpfs. A quick google didn't
find the original message but it resulted in this blog entry from the
affected party:
http://www.lightofdawn.org/blog/?viewDetailed=00128
I.E. yeah, I know, I need to redo these patches tonight.
Rob
Hi Rob,
On Thu, 2018-02-01 at 17:34 -0600, Rob Landley wrote:
>
> On 02/01/2018 04:41 PM, Taras Kondratiuk wrote:
> > Quoting Mimi Zohar (2018-02-01 13:51:52)
> >> On Thu, 2018-02-01 at 11:09 -0600, Rob Landley wrote:
> >>> On 02/01/2018 09:55 AM, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> >>>> On Thu, 2018-02-01 at 09:20 -0600, Rob Landley wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>> With your patch and specifying "root=tmpfs", dracut is complaining:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> dracut: FATAL: Don't know how to handle 'root=tmpfs'
> >>>>>> dracut: refusing to continue
> >>>>>
> >>>>> [googles]... I do not understand why this package exists.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If you're switching to another root filesystem, using a tool that
> >>>>> wikipedia[citation needed] says has no purpose but to switch to another
> >>>>> root filesystem, (so let's reproduce the kernel infrastructure in
> >>>>> userspace while leaving it the kernel too)... why do you need initramfs
> >>>>> to be tmpfs? You're using it for half a second, then discarding it,
> >>>>> what's the point of it being tmpfs?
> >>>>
> >>>> Unlike the kernel image which is signed by the distros, the initramfs
> >>>> doesn't come signed, because it is built on the target system. Even
> >>>> if the initramfs did come signed, it is beneficial to measure and
> >>>> appraise the individual files in the initramfs.
> >>>
> >>> You can still shoot yourself in the foot with tmpfs. People mount a /run
> >>> and a /tmp and then as a normal user you can go
> >>> https://twitter.com/landley/status/959103235305951233 and maybe the
> >>> default should be a little more clever there...
> >>>
> >>> I'll throw it on the todo heap. :)
> >>>
> >>>>> Sigh. If people are ok with having rootfs just be tmpfs whenever tmpfs
> >>>>> is configured in, even when you're then going to overmount it with
> >>>>> something else like you're doing, let's just _remove_ the test. If it
> >>>>> can be tmpfs, have it be tmpfs.
> >>>>
> >>>> Very much appreciated!
> >>>
> >>> Not yet tested, but something like the attached? (Sorry for the
> >>> half-finished doc changes in there, I'm at work and have a 5 minute
> >>> break. I can test properly this evening if you don't get to it...)
> >>
> >> Yes, rootfs is being mounted as tmpfs.
> >
> > I don't think you can unconditionally replace ramfs with initramfs by
> > default. Their behavior is different in some cases (e.g. pivot_root vs
> > switch_root)
>
> Both are switch_root, you can't pivot_root off of either one. (Yes, I
> hit that bug and reported it, and they fixed it, back in the day...
> http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/busybox/2006-March/053529.html )
>
> > and it can break many systems that expect ramfs by default.
>
> The use case I told Mimi about off-list (since they stopped cc:ing the
> list in one of their replies but the conversation continued) was the guy
> who was extracting an initramfs bigger than 50% of system memory, which
> worked with initramfs but failed with initmpfs. A quick google didn't
> find the original message but it resulted in this blog entry from the
> affected party:
>
> http://www.lightofdawn.org/blog/?viewDetailed=00128
>
> I.E. yeah, I know, I need to redo these patches tonight.
I'd really like to be able to have rootfs be a tmpfs filesystem. Any
time estimate on this patch?
thanks!
Mimi