[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <a9249307-9c95-ea75-bc83-7b95412e6ec4@landley.net>
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2018 16:46:07 -0600
From: Rob Landley <rob@...dley.net>
To: Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Arvind Sankar <nivedita@...m.mit.edu>
Cc: initramfs <initramfs@...r.kernel.org>,
Taras Kondratiuk <takondra@...co.com>,
Victor Kamensky <kamensky@...co.com>,
linux-security-module <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] rootfs: force mounting rootfs as tmpfs
On 01/31/2018 10:22 PM, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> On Wed, 2018-01-31 at 21:03 -0500, Arvind Sankar wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 05:48:20PM -0600, Rob Landley wrote:
>>> On 01/31/2018 04:07 PM, Mimi Zohar wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 2018-01-31 at 13:32 -0600, Rob Landley wrote:>> (The old "I configured in tmpfs and am using rootfs but I want that
>>> rootfs
>>>>> to be ramfs, not tmpfs" code doesn't seem to be a real-world concern, does
>>>>> it?)
>>>>
>>>> I must be missing something. Which systems don't specify "root=" on
>>>> the boot command line.
>>>
>>> Any system using initrd or initramfs?
>>>
>>
>> Don't a lot of initramfs setups use root= to tell the initramfs which
>> actual root file system to switch to after early boot?
>
> With your patch and specifying "root=tmpfs", dracut is complaining:
>
> dracut: FATAL: Don't know how to handle 'root=tmpfs'
> dracut: refusing to continue
"The kernel can't break this buggy userspace package."
"The kernel must give access to a new feature to this buggy userspace
package".
I think kernel policy asks you to pick one, but I could be wrong...
Rob
Powered by blists - more mailing lists