On Tue, Jun 11, 2002 at 03:33:54PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > On Tue, Jun 11, 2002 at 02:20:19PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 11, 2002 at 02:59:45PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > > > chroot(8) doesn't chroot its parent process either. If pivot_root were > > > doing that job in this instance, it would presumably work similarly to > > > chroot(8). > > So you're suggesting a syntax such as > > exec pivot_root /newroot /newroot/mnt [ /sbin/init | <command> ] > > ? That seems more awkward to me than the current behavior; > What would you do with pivot_root and chroot? > pivot_root /newroot /newroot/mnt > exec chroot /newroot /sbin/init > Doesn't seem any better. But it doesn't seem any worse, IMHO. > > in particular, there are a few commands I'm running here after pivotting > > and before exec'ing init. I guess I don't see much advantage to making > > pivot_root a more complex tool just for this reason. > If you are doing that, then those commands are executing within the initrd > root anyway, correct? Then what difference does it make whether they happen > before or after pivot_root? I'll have to think on that. Currently, we're not doing the chroot at all, because it's not necessary with the kernel we run. Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
pgpEWRfF6bkmu.pgp
Description: PGP signature