Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 20:52:46 +0000 (UTC) From: "Bjoern A. Zeeb" <bzeeb-lists@lists.zabbadoz.net> To: Boris Samorodov <bsam@ipt.ru> Cc: freebsd-jail@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: sysvipc in jails + CURRENT Message-ID: <20090604204751.Y12292@maildrop.int.zabbadoz.net> In-Reply-To: <36883384@bb.ipt.ru> References: <11979393@h30.sp.ipt.ru> <20090531174837.R3234@maildrop.int.zabbadoz.net> <20090603130503.202126d6v3glhhq8@mail.lidstrom.eu> <36883384@bb.ipt.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 4 Jun 2009, Boris Samorodov wrote: Hi, > There is definitely some inconsistency. JAIL(8) at recent > CURRENT talk about security.jail.param.allow.sysvipc and > it is listed via "sysctl -d security.jail.param". But seems > not to be used: > ----- at the jail ----- > # sysctl security.jail.param.allow.sysvipc > # > ----- If you can use an old jail binary things should work for you for the moment. The jail(8) compat code that still supports the old syntax but already uses the new syscall does not take the old sysctls into account - the problem you are seeing. Alternatively you could try updating the jail by hand using the new syntax and switch sysvipc on. The bug will probably be fixed latest somewhen next week and I just got back and have a huge backlog and Jamie will be back in a few days I think. /bz -- Bjoern A. Zeeb The greatest risk is not taking one.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20090604204751.Y12292>