Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2003 13:40:03 -0800 (PST) From: Giorgos Keramidas <keramida@freebsd.org> To: freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: docs/48095: Manual page for jail(8) does not mention mounting devfs under jail. Message-ID: <200302092140.h19Le3PK034748@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
The following reply was made to PR docs/48095; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Giorgos Keramidas <keramida@freebsd.org> To: bug-followup@freebsd.org Cc: Grzegorz Czaplinski <G.Czaplinski@prioris.mini.pw.edu.pl> Subject: Re: docs/48095: Manual page for jail(8) does not mention mounting devfs under jail. Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2003 23:36:26 +0200 On 2003-02-09 22:27, Grzegorz Czaplinski <G.Czaplinski@prioris.mini.pw.edu.pl> wrote: > On Sun, Feb 09, 2003 at 07:55:39PM +0200, Giorgos Keramidas wrote: > > # 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. > > 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 Hmm, odd. Isn't mknod sufficient? I have problems building world right now in my current machine at home, so I can't test this by creating a new jail, but how/why did mknod within the jail fail to work for you? - Giorgos To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-doc" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200302092140.h19Le3PK034748>