Demi Marie Obenour <demiobenour@gmail.com> writes:

> On 9/17/25 07:31, Alyssa Ross wrote:
>> Demi Marie Obenour <demiobenour@gmail.com> writes:
>> 
>>> The initramfs already mounted both of them.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Demi Marie Obenour <demiobenour@gmail.com>
>>> ---
>>> It's true that this does increase the reliance on an initramfs, but it
>>> is also trivial to revert if Spectrum OS ever stops using one.  Linux
>>> supports creating dm-verity devices via dm-mod.create= and (if needed)
>>> dm-mod.waitfor=, so eliminating an initramfs might be possible but is a
>>> separate project.
>> 
>> I'd still prefer we don't rely on initramfs behaviour any more than we
>> need to — it just makes things more brittle and difficult to understand.
>
> Does the mount we are using blindly mount a second instance
> of procfs and sysfs?  If so, I'd rather reuse the initramfs
> versions.  Otherwise, keeping things as-is is fine.

I don't see a second instance on edd53bb after a normal boot, whereas I
do if I manually mount -t proc proc /proc.