Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2008 18:23:52 +1100 From: Geoff Roberts <geoff@apro.com.au> To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: devfs.rules include rule question in 6.2 release Message-ID: <200801021823.53712.geoff@apro.com.au>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi, It seems you can't recursively use the "include" rule specification with devfs in Freebsd 6.2. I couldn't see a note about this in the devfs man page so I'm not sure whether this is expected behaviour or not. For example, the devfsrules_jail is defined as the following in /etc/defaults/devfs.rules [devfsrules_jail=4] add include $devfsrules_hide_all add include $devfsrules_unhide_basic add include $devfsrules_unhide_login When I create a custom rule in /etc/devfs.rules such as the following: [devfsrules_unhide_bpf=10] add path 'bpf*' unhide [devfsrules_dhcp=11] add include $devfsrules_jail add include $devfsrules_unhide_bpf All devices are actually enabled in my jail without any errors. However, if I change my devfsrules_dhcp so that I don't have any sub "includes" everything works OK: [devfsrules_dhcp=11] add include $devfsrules_hide_all add include $devfsrules_unhide_basic add include $devfsrules_unhide_login add include $devfsrules_unhide_bpf Obviously the first version is preferable as I don't need to know about the inner workings of devfsrules_jail - particularly during upgrades. Is that the expected behaviour? Kind regards, Geoff
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200801021823.53712.geoff>