| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-Id: <200607310003.36533.a1426z@gawab.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 00:03:36 +0300
From: Al Boldi <a1426z@...ab.com>
To: Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>
Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Rob Landley <rob@...dley.net>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, torvalds@...l.org, stable@...nel.org,
akpm@...l.org, chrisw@...s-sol.org, grim@...ead.cc
Subject: Re: [PATCH] initramfs: Allow rootfs to use tmpfs instead of ramfs
Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Jul 2006, Al Boldi wrote:
> > Replugs rootfs to use tmpfs instead of ramfs as a Kconfig option.
>
> Why? Looking further down we see what you should have explained here:
> > + This option switches rootfs so that it uses tmpfs rather than ramfs
> > + for its file storage. This makes rootfs swappable so having a large
> > + initrd or initramfs image won't eat up valuable RAM.
>
> Now, I'm far from an expert on initramfs and early userspace, but my
> understanding is that the "init" of a (properly designed) initramfs
> would pretty much "rm -rf" everything in the initramfs before passing
> control to the final "init". So (almost?) no valuable RAM is eaten
> up, nor the less valuable swap if you do extend this to tmpfs (unless
> something gets left open, which I think should not be the case).
>
> So I'm inclined to say that this patch is simply unnecessary. But
> if people who know better think it's a good thing, I've no objection
> (though I've not tried it): the Kconfiggery looks more likely to
> provoke argument than the tmpfs/ramfs mods.
>
> > This patch is based on John Zielinski's
> > http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=107013630212011&w=4
> > patch.
> >
> > Modified for 2.6.17.
> >
> > RunTime tested on i386.
> >
> > This trivial patch should go into 2.6.18.
>
> Well...
>
> > Cc: <stable@...nel.org>
> > Cc: Chris Wright <chrisw@...s-sol.org>
>
> Umm, the -stable tree doesn't usually take enhancements,
> even if you think it's a very stable enhancement.
>
> > Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
> > Cc: John Zielinski <grim@...ead.cc>
> > Signed-off-by: Al Boldi <a1426z@...ab.com>
> >
> > ---
> > --- a/drivers/block/Kconfig 2006-07-30 16:44:59.000000000 +0300
> > +++ b/drivers/block/Kconfig 2006-07-30 16:45:53.000000000 +0300
> > @@ -412,6 +412,22 @@ config BLK_DEV_INITRD
> > If RAM disk support (BLK_DEV_RAM) is also included, this
> > also enables initial RAM disk (initrd) support.
> >
> > +config SHM_ROOTFS
>
> Please say TMPFS_ROOTFS rather than SHM_ROOTFS throughout.
Ok.
> > + bool "Use tmpfs (shm) instead of ramfs for rootfs"
> > + depends on BLK_DEV_INITRD
> > + default n
> > + select TMPFS
> > + select SHMEM
>
> Selects can be troublesome, but you may well have decided right.
>
> > + help
> > + This option switches rootfs so that it uses tmpfs rather than ramfs
> > + for it's file storage. This makes rootfs swappable so having a
> > large
>
> its
Yes.
> > + initrd or initramfs image won't eat up valuable RAM.
> > +
> > +config RAMFS_ROOTFS
> > + bool
> > + depends on !SHM_ROOTFS
> > + default y
> > + select RAMFS
> >
> > config CDROM_PKTCDVD
> > tristate "Packet writing on CD/DVD media"
> > --- a/fs/Kconfig 2006-07-30 16:45:25.000000000 +0300
> > +++ b/fs/Kconfig 2006-07-30 16:46:36.000000000 +0300
> > @@ -853,7 +853,7 @@ config HUGETLB_PAGE
> > def_bool HUGETLBFS
> >
> > config RAMFS
> > - bool
> > + tristate "Ramfs file system support"
> > default y
> > ---help---
> > Ramfs is a file system which keeps all files in RAM. It allows
> > --- a/fs/ramfs/inode.c 2006-07-30 16:45:37.000000000 +0300
> > +++ b/fs/ramfs/inode.c 2006-07-30 16:46:36.000000000 +0300
> > @@ -191,22 +191,27 @@ struct super_block *ramfs_get_sb(struct
> > return get_sb_nodev(fs_type, flags, data, ramfs_fill_super);
> > }
> >
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_RAMFS_ROOTFS
> > static struct super_block *rootfs_get_sb(struct file_system_type
> > *fs_type, int flags, const char *dev_name, void *data)
> > {
> > return get_sb_nodev(fs_type, flags|MS_NOUSER, data, ramfs_fill_super);
> > }
> > +#endif
> >
> > static struct file_system_type ramfs_fs_type = {
> > .name = "ramfs",
> > .get_sb = ramfs_get_sb,
> > .kill_sb = kill_litter_super,
> > };
> > +
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_RAMFS_ROOTFS
> > static struct file_system_type rootfs_fs_type = {
> > .name = "rootfs",
> > .get_sb = rootfs_get_sb,
> > .kill_sb = kill_litter_super,
> > };
> > +#endif
> >
> > static int __init init_ramfs_fs(void)
> > {
> > @@ -221,9 +226,11 @@ static void __exit exit_ramfs_fs(void)
> > module_init(init_ramfs_fs)
> > module_exit(exit_ramfs_fs)
> >
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_RAMFS_ROOTFS
> > int __init init_rootfs(void)
> > {
> > return register_filesystem(&rootfs_fs_type);
> > }
> > +#endif
> >
> > MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");
> > --- a/mm/shmem.c 2006-07-30 16:45:54.000000000 +0300
> > +++ b/mm/shmem.c 2006-07-30 16:47:11.000000000 +0300
> > @@ -2123,7 +2123,7 @@ failed:
> > return err;
> > }
> >
> > -static struct kmem_cache *shmem_inode_cachep;
> > +static struct kmem_cache *shmem_inode_cachep = NULL;
>
> No need to initialize static variables to 0 (or is someone going to
> raise the spectre of NULL being non-0 on some future architecture?)
Don't know.
> > static struct inode *shmem_alloc_inode(struct super_block *sb)
> > {
> > @@ -2156,11 +2156,13 @@ static void init_once(void *foo, struct
> >
> > static int init_inodecache(void)
> > {
> > - shmem_inode_cachep = kmem_cache_create("shmem_inode_cache",
> > - sizeof(struct shmem_inode_info),
> > - 0, 0, init_once, NULL);
> > - if (shmem_inode_cachep == NULL)
> > - return -ENOMEM;
> > + if(!shmem_inode_cachep) {
>
> if (shmem_inode_cachep == NULL) {
> is more consistent with the nearby style
Ok.
> > + shmem_inode_cachep = kmem_cache_create("shmem_inode_cache",
> > + sizeof(struct shmem_inode_info),
> > + 0, 0, init_once, NULL);
> > + if (shmem_inode_cachep == NULL)
> > + return -ENOMEM;
> > + }
> > return 0;
> > }
> >
> > @@ -2345,6 +2347,27 @@ put_memory:
> > return ERR_PTR(error);
> > }
> >
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_SHM_ROOTFS
> > +static struct super_block *rootfs_get_sb(struct file_system_type
> > *fs_type, + int flags, const char *dev_name, void *data)
> > +{
> > + return get_sb_single(fs_type, flags, data, shmem_fill_super);
> > +}
> > +
> > +static struct file_system_type rootfs_fs_type = {
> > + .name = "rootfs",
> > + .get_sb = rootfs_get_sb,
> > + .kill_sb = kill_litter_super,
> > +};
> > +
> > +int __init init_rootfs(void)
> > +{
> > + if (init_inodecache())
> > + panic("Can't initialize shm inode cache");
>
> "tmpfs inode cache"
> or "shmem inode cache"
Yes, shmem.
> > + return register_filesystem(&rootfs_fs_type);
> > +}
> > +#endif
> > +
> > /*
> > * shmem_zero_setup - setup a shared anonymous mapping
> > *
Thanks for your review!
--
Al
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists