From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: rob@landley.net (Rob Landley) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2018 16:46:07 -0600 Subject: [RFC PATCH] rootfs: force mounting rootfs as tmpfs In-Reply-To: <1517458921.3329.2.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <1517348777.3469.5.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1814af5c-170d-39c0-58fd-02eb7216e008@landley.net> <1517436423.3469.237.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20180201020331.GA3774@rani.riverdale> <1517458921.3329.2.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Message-ID: To: linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-security-module.vger.kernel.org On 01/31/2018 10:22 PM, Mimi Zohar wrote: > On Wed, 2018-01-31 at 21:03 -0500, Arvind Sankar wrote: >> On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 05:48:20PM -0600, Rob Landley wrote: >>> On 01/31/2018 04:07 PM, Mimi Zohar wrote: >>>> On Wed, 2018-01-31 at 13:32 -0600, Rob Landley wrote:>> (The old "I configured in tmpfs and am using rootfs but I want that >>> rootfs >>>>> to be ramfs, not tmpfs" code doesn't seem to be a real-world concern, does >>>>> it?) >>>> >>>> I must be missing something. ?Which systems don't specify "root=" on >>>> the boot command line. >>> >>> Any system using initrd or initramfs? >>> >> >> Don't a lot of initramfs setups use root= to tell the initramfs which >> actual root file system to switch to after early boot? > > With your patch and specifying "root=tmpfs", dracut is complaining: > > dracut: FATAL: Don't know how to handle 'root=tmpfs' > dracut: refusing to continue "The kernel can't break this buggy userspace package." "The kernel must give access to a new feature to this buggy userspace package". I think kernel policy asks you to pick one, but I could be wrong... Rob -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-security-module" in the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html