Jail startup/shutdown broken on latest 9-STABLE
jamie at FreeBSD.org
Fri May 25 00:47:35 UTC 2012
On 05/24/12 16:59, Mateusz Guzik wrote:
> On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 04:46:52PM -0600, Jamie Gritton wrote:
>> I'll get the patch to jail(8) in - thanks for catching that. But I
>> wonder about the patch to /etc/rc.d/jail. It looks correct, but I'm
>> going to see if it's /etc/rc.d/jail that needs changing, or if my recent
>> changes to jail(8) have changed the order in which things are written.
> Yeah, was not sure whether I should change the order or the script. :)
> Would not it be better to just create empty persistent jail as first step?
> Since in this case only one line will be generated (jid), rc.d script
> will be able to just take the output - this seems much less fragile
> than the current method. Then of course it would proceed with jexec
> running /etc/rc and in the end drop persist flag.
> It looks like rc.d script still uses old syntax so this actually may be
> less trivial than it sounds. That being said, if this is idea sounds
> okay, I can try to come up with a patch this weekend.
There definitely is a difference between old and new jail behavior, not
just in the order of things:
glorfindel# jail -i -c name=foo command="foo"
jail: execvp: foo: No such file or directory
glorfindel# /usr/obj`pwd`/jail -i -c name=foo command="foo"
jail: exec foo: No such file or directory
jail: foo: failed
The jail id given back used to correspond to a jail that was created but
no longer exists by the time it's printed (or shortly thereafter). Now
it's a -1 indicating that no jail exists. I think the -1 is more
correct, but perhaps better for CURRENT but not STABLE? And the extra
"foo: failed" is printed by jail, as a generic message when a command
doesn't work out (for the case where the command itself doesn't print
Hmm ... I'll be pondering this one while I get a bite to eat :-).
More information about the freebsd-stable