Source-Changes archive
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: CVS commit: src/share/examples/fstab
On Wednesday, 4. May 2005 23:42, Hubert Feyrer wrote:
> On Wed, 4 May 2005, Klaus Klein wrote:
> > I believe this would really make the matter more complicated than
> > it needs to be; if the daemon chroot is mounted nodev, then what
> > next?
>
> No idea what next.
>
> But I think if someone asks a daemon to run on a filesystem with
> inapprorpiate mountflags, we can try and warn. Other operating systems to
> that, too, see Solaris' /etc/init.d/sendmail for an example.
So the fstab examples make an inconsiderate recommendation the
startup script would error on/warn about if followed?
(I concede that having such a check would be a user-friendly
feature; however, it shouldn't examine /var (as suggested) but
the actual /dev instance of the chroot cage. But this is
orthogonal to the change that kicked off the discussion.)
> > Also, a point gone missing here is thatm with the clock accuracy you
> > get from the typical COTS machine, you're very likely to end up
> > running ntpd, and in that case the suggested mount option will bite
> > you.
>
> I don't know what you mean here.
If you really don't know at this point then it reflects that the
change was made without prior awareness of a typical setup, of the
workings of the rc.d chroot mechanism, and the consequences of that
change. The paraphrasing below is consistent with that.
> I have the feeling this is evolving into a bikeshed discussion.
> ``oh my god, he dared documenting an option which may lead people into
> problems, let's quick undo the documentation instead of fixing this
> properly.''
You're not "documenting" the option; it's been very well
documented in mount(8) for more than a decade. By putting
this into the examples set you're essentially making a
recommendation, and one that is likely to hurt users. The
example rc.conf is another source of recommendations. They
weren't inconsistent until you made them so, and having a
warning printed if both are implemented does not constitute
a proper fix.
- Klaus
Home |
Main Index |
Thread Index |
Old Index