linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] use tmpfs for rootfs v2

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: <alpine.LSU.0.999.0810170025090.14480@be1.lrz>
Date:	Fri, 17 Oct 2008 00:45:22 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Bodo Eggert <7eggert@....de>
To:	Chris Friesen <cfriesen@...tel.com>
cc:	Bodo Eggert <7eggert@....de>,
	Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jeffschroeder@...puter.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] use tmpfs for rootfs v2

On Thu, 16 Oct 2008, Chris Friesen wrote:
> Bodo Eggert wrote:

> > Having tmpfs as the root filesystem allows you to get rid of the now unused
> > ramfs and free some kernel memory. On my system, that's about 5198 bytes
> > compared to having a ramfs root.
> 
> If you're not using swap, I assume the memory usage of tmpfs and ramfs would
> be identical?

I'd rather think having ACL, security labels etc. pp. will make tmpfs use 
more memory per file or directory. If you have no use for tmpfs' features,
you should use ramfs. But if you do want to use tmpfs in your system,
my guess is you'll be most likely be better off using no ramfs.
-- 
Good programming is 99% sweat and 1% coffee.
--
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/