Skip to main content

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

8
  • 1
    Thank you for taking the time to research this and write up this answer. Commented Jul 14, 2018 at 11:57
  • @GeorgSchölly You can probable tell, it is an answer I wanted to know for myself. This was a good way to get it. I still feel like I'm missing some case for "In what cases is there a rootfs entry in mount?". But I'm very satisfied to have an answer to the title question, "Why is there no rootfs file system?" :). Commented Jul 14, 2018 at 20:45
  • Sorry, rootfs is a special type of RAM-based filesystem (alike tmpfs or procf)? Commented Nov 13, 2024 at 8:52
  • 1
    Yes. Q: "Rootfs is a special instance of ramfs (or tmpfs, if that's enabled), which is always present". -- kernel.org/doc/Documentation/filesystems/… Commented Nov 13, 2024 at 11:03
  • 1
    That's the idea. And the reason the chroot is necessary is because of the question you posted originally. unix.stackexchange.com/a/786464/29483 Commented Nov 25, 2024 at 17:22