linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/5] KERNEL: Support asynchronously-discovered boot devices, v4 (resend)

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: <20090501132258.672002ee.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Fri, 1 May 2009 13:22:58 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	David VomLehn <dvomlehn@...co.com>
Cc:	stern@...land.harvard.edu, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-usb@...r.kernel.org, linux-scsi@...lxvomd02.corp.sa.net,
	netdev@...lxvomd02.corp.sa.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] KERNEL: Support asynchronously-discovered boot
 devices, v4 (resend)

On Fri, 1 May 2009 09:58:03 -0700
David VomLehn <dvomlehn@...co.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 02:54:12PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 17:19:34 -0400 (EDT)
> > Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu> wrote:
> > 
> > > > I wonder if we can think of something more new ad unique.  startupdev?  yuk.
> > > 
> > > Initdev?  Or does that mean something else also?
> ...
> > initdev sounds good to me.  Given that we're adding a new and distinct
> > concept which will remain with us for a long time, we should name it
> > with care.
> 
> Yes, we do need a good name, so we are now guaranteed to be entering
> the Bike Shed Zone.

Getting the name right is important!  We live with the decision daily,
for years.

> Personally, I'm fine with initdev and will assume this
> is the name going forward. I'll tweak the patches appropriately.

OK.

> > > Really, these are devices that we want to have working before starting
> > > up any userspace processes.  These would be the console device(s) (so
> > > that the first process has open files for its stdin, stdout, and
> > > stderr) and the block device containing the root filesystem (if the
> > > initramfs image doesn't make its own arrangements).
> > 
> > OK, so "initdev" could be viewed as meaning "a device which /sbin/init
> > needs"?  Even I can understand that.
> > 
> > But /sbin/init isn't the first userspace we run, is it?  There's
> > initramfs stuff, firmware loaders, etc.
> > 
> > What's the story here?  Do we intend that all initdevs be up and
> > running before _any_ userspace runs?  Or is /sbin/init the red line?
> 
> I've avoided making any guarantees about this, but /sbin/init is implicitly
> the red line. If we make this explicit, we're probably back in the vicinity
> of the bike shed, but this should help frame any subsequent discussion
> in a concrete manner.

Well, decisions which are made here can make the difference between
"computer boots" and "computer doesn't boot".  That ain't bikeshed
painting.

--
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/