From owner-freebsd-doc Sun Feb 9 13:30:21 2003 Delivered-To: freebsd-doc@hub.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB8E037B407 for ; Sun, 9 Feb 2003 13:30:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [216.136.204.21]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6389643F85 for ; Sun, 9 Feb 2003 13:30:19 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (gnats@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h19LUJNS032552 for ; Sun, 9 Feb 2003 13:30:19 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from gnats@freefall.freebsd.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.12.6/8.12.6/Submit) id h19LUJkm032551; Sun, 9 Feb 2003 13:30:19 -0800 (PST) Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2003 13:30:19 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <200302092130.h19LUJkm032551@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.org Cc: From: Grzegorz Czaplinski Subject: Re: docs/48095: Manual page for jail(8) does not mention mounting devfs under jail. Reply-To: Grzegorz Czaplinski Sender: owner-freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org The following reply was made to PR docs/48095; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Grzegorz Czaplinski To: Giorgos Keramidas Cc: bug-followup@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: docs/48095: Manual page for jail(8) does not mention mounting devfs under jail. Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2003 22:27:44 +0100 --pWyiEgJYm5f9v55/ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-2 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, Feb 09, 2003 at 07:55:39PM +0200, Giorgos Keramidas wrote: > On 2003-02-08 21:08, Grzegorz Czaplinski wrote: > > The manual for jail(8) does not mention anything about mounting > > devfs under jail's /dev. >=20 > This is true, but mentioning devfs only is probably incomplete. The > proper way to handle this is to mention that >=20 > # Jailed processes that need devices should have some sort of access > # to /dev nodes when they are inside the jail, imho. It is then up to > # the administrator to choose how to implement this. Either by > # mounting devfs under the /jail/dev directory or by manually calling > # MAKEDEV or mknod to create only those devices that are absolutely > # necessary. >=20 > Would a note like the above paragraph be ok? >=20 I would put it that way: # Jailed processes that need devices should have some sort of access # to /dev nodes when they are inside the jail. Making device nodes with # MAKEDEV or mknod is not sufficient. To let devfs(5) allocate device # nodes in your jail transparently do: mount -t devfs devfs /jail/dev That was not sufficient for me to make device nodes with MAKEDEV or mknod. I have tested it rather heavily. Thanks, Grzegorz -- Grzegorz Czaplinski "The Power to Serve, Right for the Power Users!" - http://www.FreeBSD.org/ Fingerprint: EB77 E19D CFA2 5736 810F 847C A70F A275 2489 469F --pWyiEgJYm5f9v55/ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (FreeBSD) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iEYEARECAAYFAj5Gx88ACgkQpw+idSSJRp+cdACgvXTmruyDzb4MHuj2F3TrWbxH 8aMAn1gZUHZvp9CQTqYS6hyHM15JXHo4 =8ebS -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --pWyiEgJYm5f9v55/-- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-doc" in the body of the message