From: Pandu Poluan [mailto:pa...@poluan.info]
> On Mar 28, 2012 11:27 AM, "Mike Edenfield" <kut...@kutulu.org> wrote:
>> Well, for one, the initramfs solution is not generally considered "ugly"
>> except by a select vocal few who object to it on vague, unarticulated
>> grounds.
> Check out the email from William Kenworth in this mailing list; he's having
> trouble with initramfs being a blackbox.
I don't see how you can really call initramfs a 'black box"; it's certainly as
open, or moreso, as the kernel, or grub, or /sbin/init; it's just a
mini-filesystem with its own init:
apollo kutulu # lsinitrd /boot/initramfs-3.2.7-hardened-apollo-0.img
/boot/initramfs-3.2.7-hardened-apollo-0.img: 2.6M
========================================================================
========================================================================
drwxr-xr-x 15 root root 0 Mar 28 13:32 .
drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 0 Mar 28 13:32 dev
drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 0 Mar 28 13:32 root
drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 0 Mar 28 13:32 bin
-rws--x--x 1 root root 105584 Feb 28 17:46 bin/mount
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 26536 Feb 28 17:46 bin/dmesg
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 30696 Feb 21 17:12 bin/uname
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 34776 Feb 21 17:12 bin/chroot
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 137624 Mar 27 13:14 bin/dash
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 71640 Feb 21 17:12 bin/stty
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 30680 Feb 21 17:12 bin/basename
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 34776 Feb 21 17:12 bin/mknod
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 4 Mar 28 13:32 bin/sh -> dash
.
.
.
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 14176 Feb 28 17:46 sbin/switch_root
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 12622 Feb 15 12:05 init
drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 0 Mar 28 13:32 tmp
drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 0 Mar 28 13:32 proc
drwxr-xr-x 5 root root 0 Mar 28 13:32 lib64
