Re: [PATCH] INITRAMFS: Add option to preserve mtime from INITRAMFScpio images

[Nye Liu]

On Wed, Sep 03, 2008 at 03:22:31PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > From: Nye Liu <nyet@xxxxxxxx>
> > 
> > When unpacking the cpio into the initramfs, mtimes are not preserved by
> > default. This patch adds an INITRAMFS_PRESERVE_MTIME option that allows mtimes
> > stored in the cpio image to be used when constructing the initramfs. For
> > embedded applications that run exclusively out of the initramfs, this is
> > invaluable.
> 
> Why is it "invlauable".  Please explain this value in full detail -
> it's the whole reason for merging the patch!

When building embedded application initramfs images, its nice to know
when the files were actually created during the build process - that
makes it easier to see what files were modified when so we can compare
the files that are being used on the image with the files used during
the build process. This might help (for example) to determine if the
target system has all the updated files you expect to see w/o having to
check MD5s etc.

In our environment, the whole system runs off the initramfs partition,
and seeing the modified times of the shared libraries (for example)
helps us find bugs that may have been introduced by the build system
incorrectly propogating outdated shared libraries into the image.

Similarly, many of the initializion/configuration files in /etc
might be dynamically built by the build system, and knowing when
they were modified helps us sanity check whether the target system
has the "latest" files etc.

Finally, we might use last modified times to determine whether a
hot fix should be applied or not to the running ramfs.

Nye

> 
> > Signed-off-by: Nye Liu <nyet@xxxxxxxx>
> > 
> > diff --git a/init/initramfs.c b/init/initramfs.c
> > index 644fc01..ebfc049 100644
> > --- a/init/initramfs.c
> > +++ b/init/initramfs.c
> > @@ -6,6 +6,7 @@
> >  #include <linux/delay.h>
> >  #include <linux/string.h>
> >  #include <linux/syscalls.h>
> > +#include <linux/utime.h>
> >  
> >  static __initdata char *message;
> >  static void __init error(char *x)
> > @@ -72,6 +73,38 @@ static void __init free_hash(void)
> >  	}
> >  }
> >  
> > +static __initdata LIST_HEAD(dir_list);
> > +struct dir_entry {
> > +	struct list_head list;
> > +	char *name;
> > +	struct utimbuf mtime;
> > +};
> > +
> > +static void __init dir_add(const char *name, struct utimbuf mtime)
> > +{
> > +	struct dir_entry *de = kmalloc(sizeof(struct dir_entry), GFP_KERNEL);
> > +	if (!de)
> > +		panic("can't allocate dir_entry buffer");
> > +	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&de->list);
> > +	de->name = kstrdup(name, GFP_KERNEL);
> > +	de->mtime = mtime;
> > +	list_add(&de->list, &dir_list);
> > +}
> > +
> > +static void __init dir_utime(void)
> > +{
> > +	struct list_head *e, *tmp;
> > +	list_for_each_safe(e, tmp, &dir_list) {
> > +		struct dir_entry *de = list_entry(e, struct dir_entry, list);
> > +		list_del(e);
> > +		sys_utime(de->name, &de->mtime);
> 
> gargh.  Why does this work?  It's normally a big fail to pass a kernel
> address into a system call.  I guess we're running under KERNEL_DS here
> and getname() and strncpy_from_user() did the right thing.
> 
> On what CPU architecture was this tested?
> 
> Wouldn't it be simpler to put a timespec into struct dir_entry then go
> direct to do_utimes() here?
> 
> > +		kfree(de->name);
> > +		kfree(de);
> > +	}
> > +}
> > +
> > +static __initdata struct utimbuf mtime;
> > +
> >  /* cpio header parsing */
> >  
> >  static __initdata unsigned long ino, major, minor, nlink;
> > @@ -97,6 +130,7 @@ static void __init parse_header(char *s)
> >  	uid = parsed[2];
> >  	gid = parsed[3];
> >  	nlink = parsed[4];
> > +	mtime.actime = mtime.modtime = parsed[5];
> >  	body_len = parsed[6];
> >  	major = parsed[7];
> >  	minor = parsed[8];
> > @@ -130,6 +164,7 @@ static inline void __init eat(unsigned n)
> >  	count -= n;
> >  }
> >  
> > +static __initdata char *vcollected;
> >  static __initdata char *collected;
> >  static __initdata int remains;
> >  static __initdata char *collect;
> > @@ -271,6 +306,7 @@ static int __init do_name(void)
> >  			if (wfd >= 0) {
> >  				sys_fchown(wfd, uid, gid);
> >  				sys_fchmod(wfd, mode);
> > +				vcollected = kstrdup(collected, GFP_KERNEL);
> >  				state = CopyFile;
> >  			}
> >  		}
> > @@ -278,12 +314,14 @@ static int __init do_name(void)
> >  		sys_mkdir(collected, mode);
> >  		sys_chown(collected, uid, gid);
> >  		sys_chmod(collected, mode);
> > +		dir_add(collected, mtime);
> >  	} else if (S_ISBLK(mode) || S_ISCHR(mode) ||
> >  		   S_ISFIFO(mode) || S_ISSOCK(mode)) {
> >  		if (maybe_link() == 0) {
> >  			sys_mknod(collected, mode, rdev);
> >  			sys_chown(collected, uid, gid);
> >  			sys_chmod(collected, mode);
> > +			sys_utime(collected, &mtime);
> >  		}
> >  	}
> >  	return 0;
> > @@ -294,6 +332,8 @@ static int __init do_copy(void)
> >  	if (count >= body_len) {
> >  		sys_write(wfd, victim, body_len);
> >  		sys_close(wfd);
> > +		sys_utime(vcollected, &mtime);
> 
> and here?
> 
> > +		kfree(vcollected);
> >  		eat(body_len);
> >  		state = SkipIt;
> >  		return 0;
> > @@ -305,12 +345,26 @@ static int __init do_copy(void)
> >  	}
> >  }
> >  
> > +static long __init do_lutime(char __user *filename,
> > +	struct utimbuf __user *times)
> > +{
> > +	struct timespec t[2];
> > +
> > +	t[0].tv_sec = times->actime;
> > +	t[0].tv_nsec = 0;
> > +	t[1].tv_sec = times->modtime;
> > +	t[1].tv_nsec = 0;
> > +
> > +	return do_utimes(AT_FDCWD, filename, t, AT_SYMLINK_NOFOLLOW);
> > +}
> > +
> >  static int __init do_symlink(void)
> >  {
> >  	collected[N_ALIGN(name_len) + body_len] = '\0';
> >  	clean_path(collected, 0);
> >  	sys_symlink(collected + N_ALIGN(name_len), collected);
> >  	sys_lchown(collected, uid, gid);
> > +	do_lutime(collected, &mtime);
> >  	state = SkipIt;
> >  	next_state = Reset;
> >  	return 0;
> > @@ -466,6 +520,7 @@ static char * __init unpack_to_rootfs(char *buf, unsigned len, int check_only)
> >  		buf += inptr;
> >  		len -= inptr;
> >  	}
> > +	dir_utime();
> 
> Perhaps this is the simplest implementation - I didn't check the fine
> details.  What's your thinking here?  

-- 
Nye Liu
nliu@xxxxxxx
(818) 772-6235x248
(818) 772-0576 fax

"Who would be stupid enough to quote a fictitious character?"
	-- Don Quixote
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/