On Sat, 9 Dec 2023 at 17:58, Eric Curtin <ecur...@redhat.com> wrote: > > On Sat, 9 Dec 2023 at 17:46, Luca Boccassi <bl...@debian.org> wrote: > > > > On Sat, 9 Dec 2023 at 17:25, Eric Curtin <ecur...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Sat, 9 Dec 2023 at 17:19, Luca Boccassi <bl...@debian.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Sat, 9 Dec 2023 at 15:08, Eric Curtin <ecur...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, 9 Dec 2023 at 14:56, Andrei Borzenkov <arvidj...@gmail.com> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On 09.12.2023 17:42, Eric Curtin wrote: > > > > > > > On Sat, 9 Dec 2023 at 12:46, Luca Boccassi <bl...@debian.org> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> On Fri, 8 Dec 2023 at 19:00, Eric Curtin <ecur...@redhat.com> > > > > > > >> wrote: > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> We have been working on a new initial filesystem called > > > > > > >>> initoverlayfs. > > > > > > >>> It is a new filesystem that provides a more scalable approach to > > > > > > >>> initial filesystems as opposed to just using initrds. We are > > > > > > >>> writing > > > > > > >>> this RFC to the systemd and dracut mailing lists (feel free to > > > > > > >>> forward > > > > > > >>> to UAPI group also) because although this solution works without > > > > > > >>> changing the code in these projects, it operates in the same > > > > > > >>> area as > > > > > > >>> systemd, udev, dracut, etc. and uses these tools. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> It seems to me everything you described already exists? If you > > > > > > >> want to > > > > > > >> avoid having an initrd -> rootfs transition, you can already do > > > > > > >> that - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You need a initrd -> rootfs transition for generic linux operating > > > > > > > systems right? > > > > > > > > > > > > No, you do not. Nothing stops you from running off initramfs (today > > > > > > you > > > > > > do not really have init*RAM Disk* - the content of initrd is > > > > > > unpacked > > > > > > into initramfs. > > > > > > > > > > Apologies if I am misinterpreting this response, I use terms initrd > > > > > and initramfs > > > > > interchangeably (not technically correct, but it's common to do > > > > > this). The > > > > > point is to avoid unpacking as much as possible, because in many > > > > > initrds > > > > > the majority of the software need not be unpacked, but is designed to > > > > > work > > > > > with throwaway initial filesystems. > > > > > > > > sd-stub already supports having a small initrd shipped in the UKI, > > > > that is extended via sysexts, and systemd already supports running > > > > from it, without any transition to a final rootfs. What else do you > > > > need? What problem is this attempting to solve? > > > > > > I must give sd-stub a try. The bootloader I most commonly work with (and > > > is one > > > of the target platforms this is intended for) isn't UEFI, we need > > > something more > > > portable. > > > > Do we, though? All modern hardware platforms (and VMs) that matter are > > UEFI. Why would any of this be needed for legacy hardware platforms? > > The existing mechanisms can work just fine on those until they reach > > EOL, they won't stop working. > > Respectfully, this is not true. Especially on ARM platforms. I would > like it to be true, but it's not true today.
Where any of this would actually matter, they mostly do, and where they don't one can put together uboot with uefi mode. > I should have expanded, we are not trying to avoid transitioning to a > final rootfs, the goal is to transition to a final rootfs. But not to > decompress > and copy all the bytes to a tmpfs up front, rather use something like erofs, > overlayfs, etc. sysexts uses erofs+overlayfs, but it's designed with > a different goal in mind. In what way is the goal different?
