From owner-freebsd-jail@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Feb 29 06:00:34 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-jail@hub.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B28C106566B for ; Wed, 29 Feb 2012 06:00:34 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::28]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 757668FC08 for ; Wed, 29 Feb 2012 06:00:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q1T60Ylr025107 for ; Wed, 29 Feb 2012 06:00:34 GMT (envelope-from gnats@freefall.freebsd.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.5/8.14.5/Submit) id q1T60YF8025106; Wed, 29 Feb 2012 06:00:34 GMT (envelope-from gnats) Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 06:00:34 GMT Message-Id: <201202290600.q1T60YF8025106@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-jail@FreeBSD.org From: Jamie Gritton Cc: Subject: Re: bin/165515: [jail][patch] "jail: unknown parameter: allow.nomount" when starting jail X-BeenThere: freebsd-jail@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Jamie Gritton List-Id: "Discussion about FreeBSD jail\(8\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 06:00:34 -0000 The following reply was made to PR bin/165515; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Jamie Gritton To: Martin Matuska Cc: Glen Barber , freebsd-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-jail@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: bin/165515: [jail][patch] "jail: unknown parameter: allow.nomount" when starting jail Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 22:56:38 -0700 On 02/28/12 17:30, Martin Matuska wrote: > On 28.2.2012 23:36, Jamie Gritton wrote: >> The allow.mount parameter recently changed in a subtle way - it's now >> a node (to e.g. allow.mount.devfs) as well as a parameter in its own >> right. This confused libjail which knows how to handle such parameters >> as long as they're not boolean. >> >> I'm including my proposed fix to libjail. This this fix, allow.nomount >> should once again work, as should allow.mount and other things such as >> allow.quotas/allow.noquotas should work as they did before. >> >> - Jamie > > Thanks. I might MFC this together with all the other new jail stuff to > 9-STABLE in a week or so. > Or do we need more testing? > > For 8-STABLE, all of this is a no-op, because the prerequisites for all > these changes date back to the VOP_VPTOCNP(9) change by kib. I've checked that the expected parameters get past the gauntlet, and that some things that look like them don't (such as host.nohostname). What I haven't checked, and should be done before I commit - since you've got it all set up, could you see if these do as you expect? allow.mount allow.nomount allow.mount.devfs allow.mount.nodevfs allow.chflags allow.nochflags That covers the newly fixed allow.mount, one of your new per-FS allows, and an existing allow that should work as it did before. Those (except the last) are all the kind of thing you've been testing anyway so it shouldn't be too much of an imposition :-). Beyond that, I don't see the need for 9-specific testing since it has the exact same libjail code. - Jamie