Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2012 01:33:38 +0100 From: simon <simon@nitro.dk> To: Kostik Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> Cc: Brooks Davis <brooks@freebsd.org>, freebsd-rc@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Bumping a pet bug Message-ID: <d56e9dd1453df77df868fa3cbb33a0ff@nitro.dk> In-Reply-To: <20120121233757.GB31224@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> References: <4F14F4FF.902@erdgeist.org> <20120120230300.GE87357@lor.one-eyed-alien.net> <cf3505af4577b689ea951e21ef51bcb5@nitro.dk> <20120121233757.GB31224@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 22 Jan 2012 01:37:57 +0200, Kostik Belousov wrote: > On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 11:43:06PM +0100, Simon L. B. Nielsen wrote: >> I think in most cases if devfs mount fails you will likely not end >> up >> with a jail where you can do much... rather many things expect >> /dev/null >> etc. >> >> It is possible to just disable the devfs mount completely for a jail >> if >> you want the jail to start up anyway without devfs so I think it >> would >> be OK to simply skip the jail if we cannot mount devfs - and >> complain >> loudly. >> >> Anybody have any cases where this would be a problem? > Just curious. Why devfs mounts can fail ? If $JAIL/dev doesn't exist or if one has messed up the devfs rulset configuration are two reasons I can think of. -- Simon
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?d56e9dd1453df77df868fa3cbb33a0ff>