Bug#676001: Processed: reassign 676001 to busybox
severity 676001 wishlist tags 676001 + wontfix thanks As shown, historically it was util-linux which implemented functionality previously found in busybox, not the other way around, and as noted several times, it is none of switch_root business to deal with other filesystems (it is more a misfeature in util-linux implementation). So marking this bug as wontfix, and appropriately lowering severity. Thanks, /mjt On 08.06.2012 21:36, Michael Tokarev wrote: On 08.06.2012 15:22, maximilian attems wrote: On Fri, Jun 08, 2012 at 03:10:42PM +0400, Michael Tokarev wrote: On 08.06.2012 14:52, maximilian attems wrote: dude care to have a bit of patience before reassigning back, that be really nice. I gave a few days, maybe it was too few, I dunno. On Tue, Jun 05, 2012 at 08:45:59AM +0400, Michael Tokarev wrote: [] I disagree it is a busybox problem, and don't think it is a switch_root business (be it from busybox or from util-linux). switch_root in util-linux does it. Yes, but it is still none of its business. that is your personal opinon and shown to be wrong. (: If you name a command switch-root and not run-init, you'd have to take care to emmulate what the original command does. In this case it is util-linux is clearly predating busybox and thus busybox is buggy not fully implementing the command. Almost no of busybox commands implements fully the corresponding big brother behavour. well in the cases where it is needed and as busybox doesn't do it is a bug. Switch_root utility in util-linux appeared _after_ the same utility appeared in busybox. In util-linux it was implemented in 2009, http://git.kernel.org/?p=utils/util-linux/util-linux.git;a=commit;h=711ea7307d54caa74aa89fc7e8614236e3721f1c This command there were taken from dracut apparently. In there, it has been written in 2002 (I guess), has been called switchroot (no underscore), and it does _umounting_ of /dev, /proc, /sys, as can be seen at http://pjones.fedorapeople.org/mkstart/usr/lib/mkstart/switchroot.c In busybox it has been implemented as switch_root in 2005, in this commit: http://git.busybox.net/busybox/commit/util-linux/switch_root.c?id=0f34a821ab99e4936c7aa4974f58784442172211 which, obviously, pre-dates the same command in util-linux. There in busybox, it is named switch_root right from the beginning, and were made after run-init behavour (instead of the switchroot from dracut). So we can conclude these implementations (in util-linux and busybox) are independent and not follows or modelled from one another. In dractu, were it umounted /dev /proc /sys instead of moving these, I guess it was modelled after nash which was a bad example of shell to use in initrd, it didn't have most standard shell constructs so it weren't easy to program in it. But I can only guess. [] run-init doesn't move mount things, you could rename switch_root to run-init, then it would be correct. You confuse things, switch_root is the new command name by util-linux and it does a certain number of things. It doesn't matter, if you personally agree with them or not. Ah and please stop evading into the init script. I'm not. Thanks, /mjt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#676001: Processed: reassign 676001 to busybox
dude care to have a bit of patience before reassigning back, that be really nice. On Tue, Jun 05, 2012 at 08:45:59AM +0400, Michael Tokarev wrote: On 05.06.2012 00:45, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote: Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: reassign 676001 busybox Bug #676001 [initramfs-tools] initramfs-tools: busybox's switch_root doesn't handle /proc or /sys moving Bug reassigned from package 'initramfs-tools' to 'busybox'. When reassigning bugs like this, care to explain the reasoning too, so that it wont be necessary to send a followup questions like this one? I disagree it is a busybox problem, and don't think it is a switch_root business (be it from busybox or from util-linux). switch_root in util-linux does it. There are a few special directories which needs to be moved or umounted. This includes /proc, /dev, /sys and not mentioned here /run. These directories might be mounted in the new root already, or there may be some option passed to initramfs to not mount these, or there may be other local policy or whatever decisions. All that can't be handled and can't be known to switch_root -- this is exactly why we have initramfs/init as a script, to be able to handle various local usecases/policies and made it extendable. If you name a command switch-root and not run-init, you'd have to take care to emmulate what the original command does. In this case it is util-linux is clearly predating busybox and thus busybox is buggy not fully implementing the command. -- maks -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#676001: Processed: reassign 676001 to busybox
On 08.06.2012 14:52, maximilian attems wrote: dude care to have a bit of patience before reassigning back, that be really nice. I gave a few days, maybe it was too few, I dunno. On Tue, Jun 05, 2012 at 08:45:59AM +0400, Michael Tokarev wrote: [] I disagree it is a busybox problem, and don't think it is a switch_root business (be it from busybox or from util-linux). switch_root in util-linux does it. Yes, but it is still none of its business. There are a few special directories which needs to be moved or umounted. This includes /proc, /dev, /sys and not mentioned here /run. These directories might be mounted in the new root already, or there may be some option passed to initramfs to not mount these, or there may be other local policy or whatever decisions. All that can't be handled and can't be known to switch_root -- this is exactly why we have initramfs/init as a script, to be able to handle various local usecases/policies and made it extendable. If you name a command switch-root and not run-init, you'd have to take care to emmulate what the original command does. In this case it is util-linux is clearly predating busybox and thus busybox is buggy not fully implementing the command. Almost no of busybox commands implements fully the corresponding big brother behavour. But this is not the point. The point is, and I described it above, it is none of switch_root business to move other filesystems, because it does not have enough information. We've a long list of actions an initramfs does, and this list includes mounting many filesystems. The script which does that has much more information about what it should do and how, and has much more chances to report errors (eg, when the new root does not have /proc or /sys directory or whatever). Besides, and I also mentioned that in my initial explanation above, /proc and /sys are not different from any other filesystem which should be moved to the new root - like /run or /dev. Now it'd be nice to know why util-linux handles these, but again, it is not the point at all. Just move these explicitly, exactly the way it is done with /run or anything else which might be needed later. /mjt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#676001: Processed: reassign 676001 to busybox
On Fri, Jun 08, 2012 at 03:10:42PM +0400, Michael Tokarev wrote: On 08.06.2012 14:52, maximilian attems wrote: dude care to have a bit of patience before reassigning back, that be really nice. I gave a few days, maybe it was too few, I dunno. On Tue, Jun 05, 2012 at 08:45:59AM +0400, Michael Tokarev wrote: [] I disagree it is a busybox problem, and don't think it is a switch_root business (be it from busybox or from util-linux). switch_root in util-linux does it. Yes, but it is still none of its business. that is your personal opinon and shown to be wrong. (: If you name a command switch-root and not run-init, you'd have to take care to emmulate what the original command does. In this case it is util-linux is clearly predating busybox and thus busybox is buggy not fully implementing the command. Almost no of busybox commands implements fully the corresponding big brother behavour. well in the cases where it is needed and as busybox doesn't do it is a bug. But this is not the point. No, you clearly again miss the point. The point is, and I described it above, it is none of switch_root business to move other filesystems, because it does not have enough information. We've a long list of actions an initramfs does, and this list includes mounting many filesystems. The script which does that has much more information about what it should do and how, and has much more chances to report errors (eg, when the new root does not have /proc or /sys directory or whatever). No and again no. run-init doesn't move mount things, you could rename switch_root to run-init, then it would be correct. You confuse things, switch_root is the new command name by util-linux and it does a certain number of things. It doesn't matter, if you personally agree with them or not. Ah and please stop evading into the init script. thank you. -- maks -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#676001: Processed: reassign 676001 to busybox
On 08.06.2012 15:28, maximilian attems wrote: On Fri, Jun 08, 2012 at 02:59:26PM +0400, Michael Tokarev wrote: [Adding debian-devel@ to the Cc list] Short story (and it is short): the bug has been filed against initramfs-tools initially, it is about how /proc and /sys filesystem should be handled in initramfs when switching to new root. Original reporter included a trivial patch for initramfs that does re-mounting of these filesystems. Max reassigned it to busybox without giving any reasonings or comments whatsoever. I explained that it is none of switch_root business, in http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=676001#24 , and asked to not reassign bugs without giving a word of explanation. After a few days of inactivity I reassigned this bug back to initramfs, per my explanation. Now max reassigned it back. no, no, you get the story wrong. The bug on initramfs-tools side is fixed^Wworked-around. I reassigned the *cloned* bug to busybox to have it properly fixed there. Aha. This makes MUCH more sense now. Somehow I thought you reassigned just the original bugreport to busybox. please get an ice cream and keep cool. No need to make a drama out of a simple single bug. Without the above explanation (cloned), it looked to me like completely wrong thing to do from your side, and indeed, I become very upset seeing a reassign again without explanations/comments (these were somehow received later, after I already sent the hot email out). That's exactly what I talked about on the initial reassignment -- lack of any comments. Now when you explained and I actually looked at the bug history and noticed the clone operation (#660297), things become real again. And no, I can't get an ice cream. I've a flu currently with body temperature being 38.6°C, so I guess an ice cream may do more harm than good. And in this context, I can buy the argument about busybox not implementing switch_root functionality from util-linux. Thank you for explaining things, and I'm sorry for being upset for nothing. /mjt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#676001: Processed: reassign 676001 to busybox
On 08.06.2012 15:22, maximilian attems wrote: On Fri, Jun 08, 2012 at 03:10:42PM +0400, Michael Tokarev wrote: On 08.06.2012 14:52, maximilian attems wrote: dude care to have a bit of patience before reassigning back, that be really nice. I gave a few days, maybe it was too few, I dunno. On Tue, Jun 05, 2012 at 08:45:59AM +0400, Michael Tokarev wrote: [] I disagree it is a busybox problem, and don't think it is a switch_root business (be it from busybox or from util-linux). switch_root in util-linux does it. Yes, but it is still none of its business. that is your personal opinon and shown to be wrong. (: If you name a command switch-root and not run-init, you'd have to take care to emmulate what the original command does. In this case it is util-linux is clearly predating busybox and thus busybox is buggy not fully implementing the command. Almost no of busybox commands implements fully the corresponding big brother behavour. well in the cases where it is needed and as busybox doesn't do it is a bug. Switch_root utility in util-linux appeared _after_ the same utility appeared in busybox. In util-linux it was implemented in 2009, http://git.kernel.org/?p=utils/util-linux/util-linux.git;a=commit;h=711ea7307d54caa74aa89fc7e8614236e3721f1c This command there were taken from dracut apparently. In there, it has been written in 2002 (I guess), has been called switchroot (no underscore), and it does _umounting_ of /dev, /proc, /sys, as can be seen at http://pjones.fedorapeople.org/mkstart/usr/lib/mkstart/switchroot.c In busybox it has been implemented as switch_root in 2005, in this commit: http://git.busybox.net/busybox/commit/util-linux/switch_root.c?id=0f34a821ab99e4936c7aa4974f58784442172211 which, obviously, pre-dates the same command in util-linux. There in busybox, it is named switch_root right from the beginning, and were made after run-init behavour (instead of the switchroot from dracut). So we can conclude these implementations (in util-linux and busybox) are independent and not follows or modelled from one another. In dractu, were it umounted /dev /proc /sys instead of moving these, I guess it was modelled after nash which was a bad example of shell to use in initrd, it didn't have most standard shell constructs so it weren't easy to program in it. But I can only guess. [] run-init doesn't move mount things, you could rename switch_root to run-init, then it would be correct. You confuse things, switch_root is the new command name by util-linux and it does a certain number of things. It doesn't matter, if you personally agree with them or not. Ah and please stop evading into the init script. I'm not. Thanks, /mjt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#676001: Processed: reassign 676001 to busybox
On 05.06.2012 00:45, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote: Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: reassign 676001 busybox Bug #676001 [initramfs-tools] initramfs-tools: busybox's switch_root doesn't handle /proc or /sys moving Bug reassigned from package 'initramfs-tools' to 'busybox'. When reassigning bugs like this, care to explain the reasoning too, so that it wont be necessary to send a followup questions like this one? I disagree it is a busybox problem, and don't think it is a switch_root business (be it from busybox or from util-linux). There are a few special directories which needs to be moved or umounted. This includes /proc, /dev, /sys and not mentioned here /run. These directories might be mounted in the new root already, or there may be some option passed to initramfs to not mount these, or there may be other local policy or whatever decisions. All that can't be handled and can't be known to switch_root -- this is exactly why we have initramfs/init as a script, to be able to handle various local usecases/policies and made it extendable. Also, as shown by Vagrant in the initial bugreport, it is really trivial to fix it in initramfs. The fact that util-linux is doing this does not make it right thing to do. Why do you think it is a busybox bug? Thanks, /mjt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
