Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 09:40:39 -0700 (PDT) From: Doug Barton <DougB@FreeBSD.org> To: "Scot W. Hetzel" <hetzels@westbend.net> Cc: FreeBSD-Current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Enhancements to the new rc.d/jail script Message-ID: <20030421093940.L2827@znfgre.tberna.bet> In-Reply-To: <001301c30816$f55e5a50$13fd2fd8@Admin02> References: <200304200055.h3K0tHJB005595@WBIw009.westbend.net> <001301c30816$f55e5a50$13fd2fd8@Admin02>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 21 Apr 2003, Scot W. Hetzel wrote:
> From: "Doug Barton" <DougB@freebsd.org>
> > On Sat, 19 Apr 2003, Scot W. Hetzel wrote:
> >
> > > Attached are patches for the new rc.d/jail script.
> >
> > This looks like good work, thanks! My only question, how will this devfs
> > stuff affect a system that isn't running jails?
> >
> The only affect it would have is having ruleset 10 defined, but not used on
> the non-jail system.
>
> If a sys admin defines ruleset 10 in /etc/rc.devfs, then either the 2 will
> be merged or the rc.d/devfs ruleset will be overwritten (if "/sbin/devfs
> rule -s 10 delset" is in /etc/rc.devfs).
Thanks for the clarification. I think that this has enough foot-shooting
potential that it should probably be hidden behind a knob in rc.conf.
Doug
--
This .signature sanitized for your protection
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030421093940.L2827>