Kang-Che Sung <explore...@gmail.com> writes: > 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
I was having a look at this again, and I'm not sure reimplementing the kernel command line parsing logic[1][2] is really desirable. I still think removing the check completely would be best, but I'm fine with just dropping this and keeping the patch only on my end or working around it with `touch /init` if you're not convinced :) Linus [1]: https://lxr.linux.no/#linux+v6.7.1/kernel/params.c#L162 [2]: https://lxr.linux.no/#linux+v6.7.1/lib/cmdline.c#L227 _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list busybox@busybox.net http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
