| 1 |
Am Fri, 09 Feb 2018 12:30:21 +0200 schrieb gevisz: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> 2018-02-09 10:11 GMT+02:00 Neil Bothwick <neil@××××××××××.uk>: |
| 4 |
>> On Thu, 8 Feb 2018 23:18:19 +0000, Wol's lists wrote: |
| 5 |
>> |
| 6 |
>>> > More specifically, /var/tmp is traditionally supposed to be |
| 7 |
>>> > non-volatile (across reboots). |
| 8 |
>>> > |
| 9 |
>>> > Comparatively the contents of /tmp can be volatile (across reboots). |
| 10 |
>>> > |
| 11 |
>>> > I would advise against mounting /var/tmp on tmpfs. |
| 12 |
>>> > |
| 13 |
>>> EMPHATICALLY YES. |
| 14 |
>>> |
| 15 |
>>> /tmp is defined as being volatile - stuff can disappear at any time. |
| 16 |
>>> |
| 17 |
>>> /var/tmp is defined as the place where programs store stuff like crash |
| 18 |
>>> recovery files. Mounting it tmpfs is going to screw up any programs |
| 19 |
>>> that reply on that *defined* behaviour to recover after a crash. |
| 20 |
>>> |
| 21 |
>>> Mounting /var/tmp/portage as tmpfs is perfectly fine as far as I know |
| 22 |
>>> - |
| 23 |
>>> I do it myself. |
| 24 |
>> |
| 25 |
>> Why mess around with another tmpfs? Just set PORTAGE_TMPDIR="/tmp" in |
| 26 |
>> make.conf. Job done! |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> It is an interesting idea. But why it is not done by default then? |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> Can somebody think of a situation when it should not be done? |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> My /tmp is not on tmpfs currently. Only /run |
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
> May be, it is not a good idea to put /mnt on tmpfs at the time of |
| 35 |
> Spector and Meltdown? |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
Portage doesn't run off /tmp by default because general recommendation is |
| 38 |
to mount /tmp with noexec. Build scripts won't be able to run that way. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
-- |
| 42 |
Regards, |
| 43 |
Kai |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
Replies to list-only preferred. |
Archives