Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 23:32:00 +0200 From: Giorgos Keramidas <keramida@ceid.upatras.gr> To: Doug Barton <DougB@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-doc@freebsd.org Subject: Re: docs/48095: Manual page for jail(8) does not mention mounting devfs under jail. Message-ID: <20030210213200.GD11444@gothmog.gr> In-Reply-To: <20030209212448.X866@12-234-22-23.pyvrag.nggov.pbz> References: <200302092050.h19KoEKx020142@freefall.freebsd.org> <20030209212448.X866@12-234-22-23.pyvrag.nggov.pbz>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2003-02-09 21:26, Doug Barton <DougB@FreeBSD.ORG> wrote: > On Sun, 9 Feb 2003, 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. > > MAKEDEV has gone the way of the dodo in -current, so it shouldn't be > mentioned. I have successfully created devices in a chroot environment > with mknod in -current, and they survive reboot. I haven't tried it with a > jail yet though. Ehm, I know, but I somehow forgot. We should only document devfs then. Thanks for reminding me that DEVFS is mandatory now. 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?20030210213200.GD11444>