On Tue, May 25, 2021 at 08:55:48AM +0800, Menglong Dong wrote:
> On Tue, May 25, 2021 at 6:58 AM Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > However, if you introduce it as a kconfig option so that users
> > who want to use this new feature can enable it, and then use it,
> > the its sold as a new feature.
> >
> > Should this always be enabled, or done this way? Should we never have
> > the option to revert back to the old behaviour? If not, why not?
> >
>
> This change seems transparent to users, which don't change the behavior
> of initramfs.
Are we sure there nothing in the kernel that can regress with this
change? Are you sure? How sure?
> However, it seems more reasonable to make it a kconfig option.
> I'll do it in the v2 of the three patches I sended.
I'm actually quite convinced now this is a desirable default *other*
than the concern if this could regress. I recently saw some piece of
code fetching for the top most mount, I think it was on the
copy_user_ns() path or something like that, which made me just
consider possible regressions for heuristics we might have forgotten
about.
I however have't yet had time to review the path I was concerned for
yet.
> > What do you mean? init_mount_tree() is always called, and it has
> > statically:
> >
> > static void __init init_mount_tree(void)
> > {
> > struct vfsmount *mnt;
> > ...
> > mnt = vfs_kern_mount(&rootfs_fs_type, 0, "rootfs", NULL);
> > ...
> > }
> >
> > And as I noted, this is *always* called earlier than
> > do_populate_rootfs(). Your changes did not remove the init_mount_tree()
> > or modify it, and so why would the context of the above call always
> > be OK to be used now with a ramfs context now?
> >
> > > So it makes no sense to make the file system of the first mount selectable.
> >
> > Why? I don't see why, nor is it explained, we're always caling
> > vfs_kern_mount(&rootfs_fs_type, ...) and you have not changed that
> > either.
> >
> > > To simplify the code here, I make it ramfs_init_fs_context directly. In fact,
> > > it's fine to make it shmen_init_fs_context here too.
> >
> > So indeed you're suggesting its arbitrary now.... I don't see why.
> >
>
> So the biggest problem now seems to be the first mount I changed, maybe I didn't
> make it clear before.
>
> Let's call the first mount which is created in init_mount_tree() the
> 'init_mount'.
> If the 'root' is a block fs, initrd or nfs, the 'init_mount' will be a
> ramfs, that seems
> clear, it can be seen from the enable of tmpfs:
>
> void __init init_rootfs(void)
> {
> if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_TMPFS) && !saved_root_name[0] &&
> (!root_fs_names || strstr(root_fs_names, "tmpfs")))
> is_tmpfs = true;
> }
Ah yes, I see now... Thanks!
Luis
