Subject: Re: /rescue, crunchgen'ed?
To: Richard Rauch <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Luke Mewburn <email@example.com>
Date: 08/30/2002 17:47:08
On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 02:24:22AM -0500, Richard Rauch wrote:
| Using a *single* crunchgen'ed binary for all old /bin and /sbin programs
| creates a similar weakpoint: The (single) crunchgen'ed binary itself.
| What exactly is the merit of crunchgen'ed binaries? Why not do one of the
| a) Just leave it all dynamic and hope crucial libraries don't die.
/rescue is an extra safety measure that doesn't cost us much disk space,
and the space that it does consume is still significantly less than
the amount we free up in / by having a dynamic /bin and /sbin.
| b) Keep "/rescue" as *distinct*, *statc* binaries, as is presently
| the case.
/rescue as a crunchgen-ed binary takes ~ 2.4MB. If all the programs were
separate statically linked programs, they require ~ 16 MB. Not everyone
has a significant amount of free space in their / partition.
| Perhaps, as well (if this isn't already part of the plan), /rescue (if
| provided) should be a distinct parttion, while /usr can be merged with /
| in the default config.
One of the purposes of /rescue is to be used as an alternate set of
tools even if almost everything else is non functional, including
/sbin/init. This means that /rescue cannot effectively be on another