Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2013 20:24:26 -0600 From: Jamie Gritton <jamie@FreeBSD.org> To: Paul Schenkeveld <freebsd@psconsult.nl> Cc: freebsd-jail@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: rc.d/jail and jail.conf Message-ID: <5158EFDA.7060406@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20130401020158.GA5500@psconsult.nl> References: <AA7CA531-5197-4BBC-B260-A3EC8B7A1024@inbox.im> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1303302157010.85469@erdgeist.org> <515847AF.8070808@FreeBSD.org> <5158526A.4020400@quip.cz> <51586419.5090207@FreeBSD.org> <51586DC8.7030500@quip.cz> <515880F3.1050300@FreeBSD.org> <5158874C.2060701@erdgeist.org> <515888BA.8060804@FreeBSD.org> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1303312112370.85469@erdgeist.org> <20130401020158.GA5500@psconsult.nl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 03/31/13 20:01, Paul Schenkeveld wrote: > On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 09:14:23PM +0200, Dirk Engling wrote: >> >> On Sun, 31 Mar 2013, Jamie Gritton wrote: >> >>> If you don't mind some slightly difficult error messages, you can always >>> "disable" a jail with exec.prestart="false". jail(8) requires all >>> commands to succeed, and in particular won't even create a jail when one >>> of the prestart commands fails. >> >> This violates POLA, but failing with >> >> exec.prestart="echo skipping jail; exit 1" >> >> might work. Even though this is not a good marker from a scripting >> perspective. > > Will this prevent all preparations from happening, i.e. will filesystems > be mounted for jails disabled this way? It will unroll anything that's been done, or at least try to. So filesystems will be mounted, and then unmounted. > Although this may work, I think that this looks dirty. I'd really prefer > a "disabled" or "noauto" keyword instead. Oh it's definitely dirty - just something I threw out there as a hack. - Jamie
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5158EFDA.7060406>