On 07/02/2013 23:37, Tanstaafl wrote: > On 2013-02-07 4:25 PM, Paul Hartman <paul.hartman+gen...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 2:53 PM, Tanstaafl <tansta...@libertytrek.org> >> wrote: >>> I think that a lot of people will misread that like I (we) did... > >> I believe he is correct and /dev/shm is irrelevant for this discussion. > > Ok, thanks, but... and no offense... > > I am not willing to gamble on breaking a remotely accessed server based > on someone's 'I believe that this is correct' comment. > > When the news item says: > >> need to verify the fstype for possible /dev line in /etc/fstab is >> devtmpfs (and not, for example, tmpfs) > > 'Possible /dev line' in no way is clear that it means a line that has > ONLY /dev on it. /dev/shm - which is also of type tmpfs - can easily be > read to be included. > >> The important thing to note is that entries for precisely /dev and >> /proc > > Mine has this in it: > >> # NOTE: The next line is critical for boot! >> none /proc proc >> defaults 0 0 > > So, you're saying that this line, that is prefaced with a comment that > says it is CRITICAL FOR BOOT, is not even needed? > > This is a server that was initially installed back in 2005, so maybe > this is cruft that is no longer needed?
Yes, that is a line that came out of an ancient baselayout. I have a few of those lying around myself. To get back to the original topic, it is only /dev and /proc that are in scope of this discussion. /dev/shm is just a filesystem which just happens to be mounted inside the /dev hierarchy and it's that way because a standard (POSIX?) just happens to mention that it's a good idea. Completely irrelevant to udev. The confusion comes about because the dev who made the original announcement is probably not a native English speaker and got his grammar and language mangled. The missing step is not no-one proof-read and clarified the original message for him -- Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
