On 16 July 2013 17:07, Roger Leigh <rle...@codelibre.net> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 05:37:09PM +0200, Paul Wise wrote: >> On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 10:38 PM, Roger Leigh wrote: >> >> > I don't think that we agreed on merging /usr at all. I have written >> > some patches for initramfs-tools to permit fsck and mount of /usr >> > in the initramfs in addition to the rootfs, but that's as far as this >> > has gone. There's no merging here, just changing where /usr is >> > mounted in the boot process. >> >> Is this implemented by just mounting /usr, by discovering which >> partitions need mounting for each binary that is to be run from the >> initramfs or by copying stuff from /usr into the initramfs too? > > Once the rootfs is mounted, we parse $root/etc/fstab and mount /usr > using that information. When init starts, /usr is therefore > available from the beginning. Note that the objective here isn't > to allow the initramfs to run binaries from /usr, but to ensure > that /usr is available at all times when the system is running-- > this means that all programs, libraries, modules, datafiles etc. > are available before init starts. > > There are some complicating details: > - we need to ensure that the modules needed to mount /usr are > available in the initramfs (copy the needed modules and > mount helpers into the initramfs) > - we can't fsck /usr when mounted, so this needs doing in the > initramfs (/ and /usr are fscked, with the appropriate > helpers copied into the initramfs) > - fsck's -R option updated to skip /usr as well as root. > - /etc/init.d/checkroot.sh updated to handle /usr as well > as root (e.g. remounting r/w). >
Up to here, all sounds good. Making the $mountpoints which above are treated / mounted in initramfs, makes sense. To be able to default to "/" only and change to "/ and /usr" if one desires. And even plugin in the feature below. > - using the same infrastructure, it's also possible to > mount /etc in the initramfs so that you can have e.g. a > separately encrypted /etc filesystem. This is a separate > feature though and can be split out. > Imho the overhead between having just "/etc" vs "/" encrypted is small, if "/var", "/usr", "/home", "/opt" are separate mountpoints. Thus to me, treating "/etc" separately is a misfeature, considering a mounted "/" assumes /etc must be present. At least, it would go against my expectation. I haven't yet reviewed the 17 patches log patch series on [1]. But is "/etc" handling clearly separated in it already, or some rebasing/reshuffling needed? Regards, Dmitrijs. [1] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=652459 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CANBHLUhRPUcnhK11MstzuVTWY_=ttvt4onwrhbzrul90zwk...@mail.gmail.com
