Linus Heckemann <g...@sphalerite.org> 於 2024年4月23日 星期二寫道： > > I don't really see the existence of /init being so critical for > this check given that we check below that it's a ramfs or tmpfs, which > seems to me to be enough that people won't be destroying filesystems > they cared a great deal about. >
The ramfs/tmpfs check was good as it won't destroy any _permanent_ file the user could have, but it wouldn't hurt either when there is another sanity check. >> Perhaps a better approach is to check the existence of what's specified in >> the "rdinit" parameter instead. > > That would introduce an additional dependency on /proc being mounted and > require additional parsing. I don't think the check is that necessary, > again because we have the /-is-ramfs-or-tmpfs check. But if you do think > we need it I can rewrite the patch to check for rdinit= on cmdline as well. > /proc should be mounted by most init systems anyway. But we can skip the check when /proc doesn't exist, just in case. The logic would be roughly like this: If "/proc/cmdline" exists Read the "rdinit" parameter from "/proc/cmdline"; if it's unspecified, default to "/init" If the file in "rdinit" doesn't exist, stop. Else Skip the "rdinit" existence check and continue the switch_root process
_______________________________________________ busybox mailing list busybox@busybox.net http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
