Le Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at 05:14:51PM -0400, Mouse a écrit :
> > I always wondered---as for '/'---if, for consistency, there should
> > not be a "kernel root", i.e. a filesystem linked to the kernel and
> > with the essential utilities, this minimal system being in fact what
> > an administrator deals with, including for remote administration,
> > when going single user
>
> In some cases that would make a lot of sense. In some others it would
> insanity.
>
> But...can't we get close to that already with md?
Yes, partly. But not when one wants to unmount a "user level" root to
mount another one in its stead. If I remember correctly---I was
interested in all the bootstrapping stuff a very long time ago---Linux
had introduced a dance so that the root filesystem could be unmounted
---or more probably the root of init being modified by some trick under
cover in order to be able to switch the filesystems (my memory is
fuzzy). But it was/is? ad hoc.
And there is the major problem of the union of filesystems (another root
unioned on the kernel root). Union of filesystems is a great idea but is a
little awkward in Unix---while it is in fact at the core of Plan9.
--
Thierry Laronde <tlaronde +AT+ polynum +dot+ com>
http://www.kergis.com/
http://kertex.kergis.com/
http://www.sbfa.fr/
Key fingerprint = 0FF7 E906 FBAF FE95 FD89 250D 52B1 AE95 6006 F40C
