On 04.08.2003 01:04, Mike Makonnen wrote: > On Sun, Aug 03, 2003 at 04:11:12PM +0200, Jens Rehsack wrote: >> >> the patch works for me very well. I've checked what's been done >> and had only small recommendations: >> >> - Wouldn't it be better to configure the devfs rules by >> /etc/devfs.conf or is it impossible? >> >> - Even it would be a good thing, if I could specify a >> ruleset for each jail, and fallback to devfs_ruleset_jail >> if no jail_example_devfs_ruleset is specified? > > Ok. Here's a retooled patch. It now includes a devfs rule > specification format that we can even use in the general > case (i.e. - for /dev). The default rules for a jail are > included in it. It's in etc/defaults/devfs.rules and should > be self-explanatory. > > I also put back Scott's code in rc.d/jail for handlind rulesets > for individual jails. But I kept the default jail ruleset hard-coded. > I don't see the poing of creating yet another knob for it. If a user > doesn't want the default that's what the individual knobs for > the jails are there for :) > > Let me know how it goes. > On 04.08.2003 01:09, Mike Makonnen wrote: > the patch is attached this time. Hi Mike, sorry that testing took a while, but it failed completely first time on my machine I didn't find the time to debug. 1st: you have a typo in etc/rc.d/jail sed "/\[-z/\[ -z/" 2nd: you include the 'devfs_ruleset_hide' several times, and each time the devfs call for it hides all previous unhidden. So you have to remove the 'add include $devfs_ruleset_hide' from the unhiding rulesets. 3rd: I don't know why, but I had your etc/default/devfs.rules content 5 times in my etc/defaults/debfs.rules The parsing subr fails with this content and so the jails didn't came up. So it was my fault (even I cannot explain, 'cause I removed /usr/src/etc before I cvsup'ed and applied the patch). By the way, now it works. Great step for flexible jails!!! JensReceived on Mon Aug 11 2003 - 07:30:24 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:37:18 UTC