Subject: keep init static? (was: Re: RFC: migration to a fully dynamically linked system)
To: Luke Mewburn <email@example.com>
From: Emmanuel Dreyfus <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 08/30/2002 18:48:28
On 08/23/2002 10:06:10, Luke Mewburn <email@example.com> said:
>| Why not simply add /rescue/init to the paths the kernel will try?
> had also considered that, and you're the second person I've seen
> suggest it independantly. Seems reasonable to me. That, and printing
> each name after the first ("/sbin/init") that it's trying to load in
> the non DEBUG case.
The more I think about it, the more I believe init should remain static.
With a static init that would try /rescue/sh on /bin/sh failure, we can
keep a working single user mode whatever happens. You can even rm
/lib/ld.elf_so, the system will still be able to drop to single user.
Do we really need locale support in init? It does not interact with the user,
just with the system administrator in case of disaster. making it dynamic
is not that interesting and it reduces a lot the resistance of the system
if root makes the mistake of breaking its libc.
I think we should really keep init static. (and have ftp in /rescue so that
you can download tarballs to restore your system, but this is another story)