Re: [9fans] changes in 9load

[Fco.J.Ballesteros <nemo@plan9.escet.urjc.es>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 222 bytes --]

I meant a file system to access the /boot portion in the kernel image.
But I think that's both clumsy and wrong (because you might change the kernel
without doing a mk) and discarded the idea soon after considering it.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 1880 bytes --]

From: "Russ Cox" <rsc@plan9.bell-labs.com>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] changes in 9load
Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 13:35:17 -0400
Message-ID: <90b20611bddbc6da6a3a70d5d136263a@plan9.bell-labs.com>

> Yeah.  I also considered a rw /boot, but, without even looking, I
> assumed it would be a bitch, at best.  Being read-only is of course
> a security advantage.  On the other hand, could a script in /boot
> not read the configuration files from the boot medium instead of
> inheriting them off the "environment"?

What would a rw /boot mean?  Changing it certainly
wouldn't change the kernel image (wherever it may
have been picked up from), so you might as well use
ramfs if you want an in-memory rw file system.

Russ