linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] Introduce a 'recovery' command line option

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 16 Aug 2016 12:47:08 +0300
From:	Janne Karhunen <janne.karhunen@...il.com>
To:	Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] Introduce a 'recovery' command line option

On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 11:59 AM, Richard Weinberger <richard@....at> wrote:

>> For saving some precious boot-up time (my systems run without initrd)
>> and to unify the solutions. If kernel does this bootloaders and
>> initrds don't have to care.
>
> Features - collect them all? ;-)

Well if every vendor ends up implementing something different for this
purpose and it can be solved with just a few lines of common kernel
code, IMHO it might just be worth it.

> I my opinion it is not wise to move feature into the kernel which can
> be solved perfectly fine in userspace (initramfs).
>
> How much slows an initramfs your boot time down?
>
> Did you try using a handmade minimal initramfs? Not compressed, single c program,
> statically linked..., etc.

Depends on the initrd and the hardware, of course. Certainly you can
implement the same on initd, but you can never make it as fast as this
one. Moreover, this solution would have a common 'user interface' for
the functionality if anyone cares about the userspace unification
efforts.

-- 
Janne