On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 08:12:21PM +0200, Luca Capello wrote: > Hi there! > > On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 13:38:03 +0200, Roger Leigh wrote: > > Josh Triplett suggested that we could use a single tmpfs on /run and > > have the rest as symlinks into /run, with potentially a separate > > tmpfs for user-writable filesystems to prevent a user DoS. This idea > > does have merit, and we could make it the default. We currently do > > this for /var/lock (/run/lock), which can be mounted as a separate > > tmpfs on /run/lock if RAMLOCK is set in /etc/defaults/rcS. > > Do you mean that the meaning of RAMLOCK has completely changed? > Currently, `man rcS` gives: > > RAMLOCK > Make /var/lock/ available as a ram file system (tmpfs). > Will also disable cleaning of /var/lock/ during boot. > Set to 'yes' to enable, to 'no' to disable. The size > of the tmpfs can be controlled using TMPFS_SIZE and > LOCK_SIZE in /etc/default/tmpfs. Because of this, > packages can not expect directories in /var/lock to > exist after boot. Packages expecting this are buggy > and need to be fixed. > > I consider completely changing it a serious bug, may I suggest > deprecating it completely and adding a new variable instead? I guess > the same should be applied to RAMRUN, i.e. simply deprecate it. With the patch as it stands at present, RAMRUN is deprecated. /run is always a tmpfs; RUN_SIZE will set its size, as before. RAMLOCK is unchanged, except for the fact that it's mounted on /run/lock rather than /var/lock. Likewise, LOCK_SIZE is unchanged in its meaning. We could introduce new variables for /run such as RUNLOCK, but given that it does exactly what it used to do, I don't think it gains us anything. Regards, Roger -- .''`. Roger Leigh : :' : Debian GNU/Linux http://people.debian.org/~rleigh/ `. `' Printing on GNU/Linux? http://gutenprint.sourceforge.net/ `- GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848 Please GPG sign your mail.
Description: Digital signature