linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] initramfs: Allow rootfs to use tmpfs instead of ramfs

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <44CE58EE.1090409@zytor.com>
Date:	Mon, 31 Jul 2006 12:24:30 -0700
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	Al Boldi <a1426z@...ab.com>
CC:	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,
	Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] initramfs:  Allow rootfs to use tmpfs instead of ramfs

Al Boldi wrote:
>>
>> The main issue -- which I am not sure what effect this patch has -- is
>> that we would really like to move initramfs initialization even earlier
>> in the kernel, so that it can include firmware loading for built-in
>> device drivers, for example.
> 
> I suspect, if there would be a problem with tmpfs, then ramfs would be no 
> different.
> 

That is a very bold assumption (a.k.a. "just plain wrong".)  ramfs and 
tmpfs are a lot more different than one would normally think from a 
kernel internals perspective.

>> Thus, if this patch makes it harder to push initramfs initialization
>> earlier, it's probably a bad thing.
> 
> Agreed, but remember that tmpfs is an option, not a replacement.

Red herring.  If it goes in, it needs to be supportable going forward.

>> If not, the author of the patch
>> really needs to explain why it works and why it doesn't add new
>> dependencies to the initialization order.
>>
>> Saying "this is a trivial patch" and pushing it on the -stable tree
>> doesn't inspire too much confidence, as initialization is subtle.
> 
> Ok, I did play with main.c, and as you mentioned, initialization is subtle.  
> But categorizing this patch as trivial is based more on the fact, that ramfs 
> and tmpfs are semantically equivalent, and as such should not impose 
> additional dependencies.

Again, that's just plain wrong.

	-hpa
-
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/