From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <90b20611bddbc6da6a3a70d5d136263a@plan9.bell-labs.com>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] changes in 9load
From: "Russ Cox" <rsc@plan9.bell-labs.com>
In-Reply-To: <20030521192502.C7647@cackle.proxima.alt.za>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 13:35:17 -0400
Topicbox-Message-UUID: b67ccac4-eacb-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

> 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