Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2020 16:07:34 -0700 From: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> To: Brooks Davis <brooks@freebsd.org>, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Appropriate path for mount/fsck sub-programs? Message-ID: <3d9a63cf-62f6-02af-0755-2ddeacc38f96@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20200916204214.GA87473@spindle.one-eyed-alien.net> References: <20200916204214.GA87473@spindle.one-eyed-alien.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 9/16/20 1:42 PM, Brooks Davis wrote: > The mount and fsck commands have the ability to exec a mount_<fs> or > fsck_<fs> program to do the actual work. Currently they do this with: > > execvP(execname, _PATH_SYSPATH, argv); > > Where _PATH_SYSPATH is "/sbin:/usr/sbin" unless RESCUE is defined in > which case it's "/rescue:/sbin:/usr/sbin". This isn't very friendly to > filesystems in ports and results in things like sysutils/e2fsprogs > adding a link to /sbin. I think the path should be expanded to include > /usr/local/sbin at a minimum. If it wasn't for the /rescue hack I'd be > tempted to suggest just switching to `execvp` and using PATH. > I see a few options (semi-sorted by level of change): > > 0) Do nothing > 1a) Add /usr/local/sbin to _PATH_SYSPATH (it's only used in mount and > fsck). > 1b) The same, but a new variable. Prefer 1a to 1b between those two. > 2) Switch to _PATH_DEFPATH (that also add .../bin directories)> 3) Use PATH, optionally prepending /rescue > 4) Use exevp and teach crunched_main.c to prepend /rescue to PATH. For all of these I think it likely means removing _PATH_SYSPATH? 1b) or 2) seem simplest (just modifying paths.h). They are probably good enough whereas 3 and 4 both requiring dealing with strings which is kind of bleh. -- John Baldwin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3d9a63cf-62f6-02af-0755-2ddeacc38f96>