Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2013 04:01:58 +0200 From: Paul Schenkeveld <freebsd@psconsult.nl> To: freebsd-jail@freebsd.org Subject: Re: rc.d/jail and jail.conf Message-ID: <20130401020158.GA5500@psconsult.nl> In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1303312112370.85469@erdgeist.org> 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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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? Although this may work, I think that this looks dirty. I'd really prefer a "disabled" or "noauto" keyword instead. -- Paul Schenkeveld
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20130401020158.GA5500>