On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 12:32 PM, Chris Ball <cjb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 21 2011, Andrei Warkentin wrote: >> >> The permalocking brick-potential (more like paper-weight-potential) is >> IMO unacceptably high that something like this is just accessible via >> a sysfs attribute. This is exactly why the boot partitions were put >> under force_ro, so that some poor sap wouldn't end up nuking the boot >> partitions (with obvious consequences), and permalocking seems even >> nastier. I presume the sysfs files are there exactly to avoid bricking, by locking partitions down from userspace. So what you're saying is that this should be done by the kernel itself or bootloader? [Chris] > I agree. Does anyone have an argument for including either of these? I see the problem with having it as sysfs files, so what is our rationale about using that documented MMC feature? I can think of two: 1) Use a kernel cmdline param to permalock partitions 2) Only bootloaders should do such stuff As noticed all over ARM linux' mailing lists boot loader updates are nasty stuff, usually it's pretty hard to alter stuff there to get what you want. Not all boot loaders are as sophisticated cmdline parsers as U-Boot mind you... So what about a cmdline approach? That makes it possible for people who are willingly recompiling and hacking their kernels to tinker with this if they absolutely want to go in on that partition, make it rw and change stuff. ...org have I just got all this backwards...? Yours, Linus Walleij -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
