[klibc] symlinks and initramfs (was klibc-1.2.1: kinit works...)
H. Peter Anvin
hpa at zytor.com
Tue Jan 31 09:45:29 PST 2006
Aaron Griffin wrote:
> On 1/31/06, Milton Miller <miltonm at bga.com> wrote:
>>I would request we not put in symlinks. The problem is that they are
>>difficult to override. Loading a later cpio has the effect of
>>(attempting to) write over the current target of the symlink. There is
>>no "remove existing file or directory" entry in cpio. This and the
>>fact that initramfs only extends files are the two biggest limitations
>>I've run into during the past 3 plus years.
> I kind of thought that was the point he was making. /kinit exists as
> a hard file, symlinked to /init so that a user built initramfs can
> replace /init easier, while still keeping /kinit in place. Sure, you
> could load an initramfs which overwrites /kinit while still expecting
> /init to work as normal, but at that point you're just trying to
> protect fools from themselves.
No, the point he's making is that we need to make sure that the
in-kernel cpio extractor can handle overwriting a symlink with a file,
which I'm not sure the current one does.
More information about the klibc