On Fri, Feb 26 2016 at 2:59pm -0500, Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 11:21 AM, Mike Snitzer <snitzer@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 26 2016 at 1:52pm -0500, > > Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 8:53 AM, Mike Snitzer <snitzer@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > On Mon, Feb 22 2016 at 1:55pm -0500, > >> > Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > > >> >> On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 2:08 PM, Alasdair G Kergon <agk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> >> > On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 10:13:49AM -0800, Kees Cook wrote: > >> >> >> This is a resurrection of a patch series from a few years back, first > >> >> >> brought to the dm maintainers in 2010. It creates a way to define dm > >> >> >> devices on the kernel command line for systems that do not use an > >> >> >> initramfs, or otherwise need a dm running before init starts. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> This has been used by Chrome OS for several years, and now by Brillo > >> >> >> (and likely Android soon). > >> >> >> > >> >> >> The last version was v4: > >> >> >> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/104860/ > >> >> >> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/104861/ > >> >> > > >> >> > Inconsistencies in the terminology here can be sorted out during review, > >> >> > and I see that you've taken on board some of my review comments from > >> >> > 2010, but what are your responses to the rest of them? > >> >> > >> >> Ah, sorry, the threads I could find were incomplete, so I wasn't able > >> >> to find those comments that were made to Will's 2010 submission. In > >> >> some of the cleanups I did I was very confused about "target" vs > >> >> "table", and tried to fix that. Regardless, I'm open to fixing > >> >> whatever is needed. :) > >> >> > >> >> Thanks for looking at this again! > >> > > >> > This work isn't going to fly as is. I appreciate the effort and the > >> > goal (without understanding _why_) but: you're open-coding, duplicating > >> > and/or reinventing way too much in do_mounts_dm.c > >> > > >> > 1) You first need to answer: _why_ is using a proper initramfs not > >> > viable? A very simple initramfs that issues dmsetup commands, etc, > >> > isn't so daunting is it? Why is it so important for the kernel to > >> > natively provide a dmsetup interface? Chrome, Android, etc cannot use > >> > initramfs? > >> > >> That is correct: Chrome OS does not (and won't) use an initramfs. This > >> is mainly for reasons of boot speed, verified boot block size, and > >> maybe some other things I don't remember. > > > > Not sure what "verified boot block size" means but... > > Chrome OS uses coreboot as its boot firmware and a coreboot module > known as "depthcharge" for doing the crypto-verification and booting > of the Chrome OS system. This is the static root of trust Chrome OS > extends from its read-only boot firmware through to the kernel it > loads and the dm-verity partition it mounts as the read-only root > filesystem. To keep the boot speed fast and the kernel size small, > there is no initramfs. > > > Sorry I really don't buy that using a custom initramfs would be the > > source of slow boot. initramfs is _not_ this hugely inefficient > > mechanism you'd have us believe. > > I didn't say it was hugely inefficient, but for Chrome OS it's not > needed, and was a measurable source of boot time. We just got rid of > it since it was redundant. I can't change that design decision; I'm > just here to help bring the dm= boot support upstream. :) > > > And if that is the justification for this early boot dm= support then > > the Chrome OS project/team will have to continue to carry the hack > > locally. It has no place upstream. But I'm open to revisiting this if > > it can be implemented in a very cheap way. > > Yeah, I'm open to whatever suggestions you have. > > >> > 2) If you are able to adequately justify the need for dm=: > >> > I'd much rather the dm= kernel commandline be a simple series of > >> > comma-delimited dmsetup-like commands. > >> > > >> > You'd handle each command with extremely basic parsing: > >> > <dm_ioctl_cmd> <args> [, <dm_ioctl_cmd> <args>] > >> > (inventing a special token to denote <newline>, to support tables with > >> > multiple entries, rather than relying on commas and counts, etc) > >> > >> Sure, changing the syntax is fine by me. We'd need to plumb access to > >> the ioctl interface, though. > > > > I was hoping to avoid any extra hacks but yes... seems you'd need a new > > API to issue the equivalent of a DM ioctl programatically. Hopefully > > it'd be quite a small wrapper. > > Seems like it shouldn't be too bad. OK, I'm waiting on you to give it a shot. I'll do my best to help. Thanks, Mike -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
