From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jan 2 08:45:46 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B35BE16A417 for ; Wed, 2 Jan 2008 08:45:46 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from geoff@apro.com.au) Received: from mail.ricksure.com.au (mail.ricksure.com.au [203.98.89.150]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23E2013C442 for ; Wed, 2 Jan 2008 08:45:45 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from geoff@apro.com.au) Received: from dsl-202-173-129-2.nsw.westnet.com.au [202.173.129.2] by mail.ricksure.com.au with SMTP; Wed, 2 Jan 2008 19:45:37 +1100 From: Geoff Roberts Organization: Australian Projects To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2008 18:23:52 +1100 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200801021823.53712.geoff@apro.com.au> X-Declude-Sender: geoff@apro.com.au [202.173.129.2] X-Declude-Spoolname: 44975896.eml X-Declude-RefID: X-Declude-Note: Scanned by Declude 4.3.57 "http://www.declude.com/x-note.htm" X-Declude-Scan: Outgoing Score [0] at 19:45:40 on 02 Jan 2008 X-Declude-Tests: Whitelisted X-Country-Chain: X-Declude-Code: 0 X-Declude-Recipcount: 1 Organization: Declude, Inc. X-Helo: bsdapro.home.wollongong X-RevDNS: Subject: devfs.rules include rule question in 6.2 release X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: geoff@apro.com.au List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2008 08:45:46 -0000 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