Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 06:00:34 GMT From: Jamie Gritton <jamie@FreeBSD.org> To: freebsd-jail@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: bin/165515: [jail][patch] "jail: unknown parameter: allow.nomount" when starting jail Message-ID: <201202290600.q1T60YF8025106@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
The following reply was made to PR bin/165515; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: Jamie Gritton <jamie@FreeBSD.org>
To: Martin Matuska <mm@FreeBSD.org>
Cc: Glen Barber <gjb@FreeBSD.org>, freebsd-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.org,
freebsd-jail@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: bin/165515: [jail][patch] "jail: unknown parameter: allow.nomount"
when starting jail
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 22:56:38 -0700
On 02/28/12 17:30, Martin Matuska wrote:
> On 28.2.2012 23:36, Jamie Gritton wrote:
>> The allow.mount parameter recently changed in a subtle way - it's now
>> a node (to e.g. allow.mount.devfs) as well as a parameter in its own
>> right. This confused libjail which knows how to handle such parameters
>> as long as they're not boolean.
>>
>> I'm including my proposed fix to libjail. This this fix, allow.nomount
>> should once again work, as should allow.mount and other things such as
>> allow.quotas/allow.noquotas should work as they did before.
>>
>> - Jamie
>
> Thanks. I might MFC this together with all the other new jail stuff to
> 9-STABLE in a week or so.
> Or do we need more testing?
>
> For 8-STABLE, all of this is a no-op, because the prerequisites for all
> these changes date back to the VOP_VPTOCNP(9) change by kib.
I've checked that the expected parameters get past the gauntlet, and
that some things that look like them don't (such as host.nohostname).
What I haven't checked, and should be done before I commit - since
you've got it all set up, could you see if these do as you expect?
allow.mount
allow.nomount
allow.mount.devfs
allow.mount.nodevfs
allow.chflags
allow.nochflags
That covers the newly fixed allow.mount, one of your new per-FS allows,
and an existing allow that should work as it did before. Those (except
the last) are all the kind of thing you've been testing anyway so it
shouldn't be too much of an imposition :-). Beyond that, I don't see the
need for 9-specific testing since it has the exact same libjail code.
- Jamie
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201202290600.q1T60YF8025106>