Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] root-hopping for pre-2.3.41-3 | Date | Thu, 27 Jan 2000 00:18:20 -0300 | From | Horst von Brand <> |
| |
"Richard B. Johnson" <root@chaos.analogic.com> said: > On Wed, 26 Jan 2000, Horst von Brand wrote:
[...]
> > I'd say go with the proposal of the fake root/cwd directory for kernel > > threads that don't need access to the filesystem (all of them, I > > guess). Cleanest way out, unless you allow them to live without root/cwd.
> Most if not all of the use of "root-hopping" occurs upon startup > where a single statically-linked shell executes statically-linked > 'insmod' to prepare for the new root. The real init starts with > the new root and never even knows about any previous.
I know. But gratuitous / and cwd for threads are in the way. If they aren't needed, get rid of them. Might help in other cases too.
[...]
> Now, if somebody expects to "root-hop" once the system is up > with mapped shared-libraries, etc., they are in a world of hurt. > That's not what changing the root was all about. If you intend > to make root-hopping take on a new meaning and cover all the > cases of changing the root of a "hot" operating system, it's > going to be a lot of code to do not much that's useful in the > end.
I fully understand that. But if it doesn't cost much to round it out and give it a clean definition (i.e., works only for directories that aren't in use, no mounts underneath allowed; and then make the rest of the kernel able to comply for /) is a win IMHV. Might be useful in other cases too (it would in fact provide atomic umount + mount another fs) if used elsewhere. -- Horst von Brand vonbrand@sleipnir.valparaiso.cl Casilla 9G, Viña del Mar, Chile +56 32 672616
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |