Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 15:06:54 +0300 From: Jaakko Heinonen <jh@FreeBSD.org> To: Hans Petter Selasky <hps@bitfrost.no> Cc: usb@freebsd.org, Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net>, Uffe Jakobsen <uffe@uffe.org>, avg@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: priv_check/make_dev/devfs.rules: What is preventing a device to show up in a jail? Message-ID: <20130613120653.GA1467@dsl-tkubrasgw1-54fa22-153.dhcp.inet.fi> In-Reply-To: <51B9650D.1050601@bitfrost.no> References: <20130509110718.0000528e@unknown> <518C060E.8040301@gmail.com> <20130510121133.00001e2a@unknown> <518CDD73.9090405@uffe.org> <20130510213303.00005078@unknown> <51B9650D.1050601@bitfrost.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2013-06-13, Hans Petter Selasky wrote: > Can we introduce a new syntax while keeping the old behaviour? > > path zvol/* hide-r > path zvol/* unhide-r > > I think this will be more accepted than changing existing behaviour! IMHO, the old behavior is so confusing and unintuitive that we should not maintain it. Can you clarify how "hide-r" and "unhide-r" would differ from plain "hide" and "unhide". The current syntax already uses pattern matching via fnmatch(9). > Is this stack element really needed? > > + char specname[SPECNAMELEN + 1]; Need to check if M_WAITOK malloc is possible here. -- Jaakko
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20130613120653.GA1467>