| 1 |
On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 8:30 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net> wrote: |
| 2 |
> Rich Freeman posted on Sun, 15 Jul 2012 14:48:55 -0400 as excerpted: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>> Giving it a little thought, the simplest tmpfs-based root would be one |
| 5 |
>> that defines a tarball as a the root. The system would create a tmpfs, |
| 6 |
>> extract the tarball to it, and then use the existing fstab-sys module to |
| 7 |
>> mount stuff on top of that. This gives you the option of actually |
| 8 |
>> putting some content in the tarball, or just storing an empty directory |
| 9 |
>> structure in it. A tarball would let you set permissions/etc and be a |
| 10 |
>> bit more generic than writing a custom script. If you wrote a module to |
| 11 |
>> do this I wouldn't be suprised if upstream let you merge it. You'd just |
| 12 |
>> need to define some kind of sane syntax for it |
| 13 |
>> (root=TAR=path...to...tarball - though how a path works with nothing |
| 14 |
>> mounted you'd have to define). Maybe you define the tarball at |
| 15 |
>> initramfs creation (as is done with fstab.sys and mdadm.conf). |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> Tarball is an interesting idea I hadn't considered. At first blush I |
| 18 |
> like it. =:^) |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> Thinking in that direction does stimulate yet another idea, tho. What |
| 21 |
> about a squashfs root? AFAIK squashfs is read-only at use time, thus |
| 22 |
> enforcing actually mounting something else to write anything, eliminating |
| 23 |
> many of the down sides of sticking with the initial ramfs root, but it |
| 24 |
> would allow the same flexibility in terms of sticking whatever into it at |
| 25 |
> create-time, while only taking the memory necessary for what's actually |
| 26 |
> stuck in it at create-time. I /think/ it's swappable, too, which would |
| 27 |
> give me some flexibility in terms of letting more stuff be added at |
| 28 |
> create-time without having to worry about it being locked in memory. And |
| 29 |
> I think squashfs is reasonably tested territory for this sort of thing, |
| 30 |
> given its use for live-media, etc. And it's in mainline now, too, which |
| 31 |
> is nice. =:^) I'll have to do some research and think about that a bit |
| 32 |
> more... |
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
> Definitely thanks for the tarball idea, as otherwise I'd probably have |
| 35 |
> not got out of my "box" and thought about squashfs. I'm probably missing |
| 36 |
> its downsides ATM, but you still broke my thinking out of the box! |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
This is sounding closer and closer to an on-disk liveCD. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
-- |
| 41 |
:wq |
Archives