On Feb 6, 2015, at 21:27, James Gritton <ja...@freebsd.org> wrote: > On 2015-02-06 22:18, Garrett Cooper wrote: >> On Feb 6, 2015, at 9:54, Jamie Gritton <ja...@freebsd.org> wrote: >>> Modified: head/usr.sbin/jail/command.c >>> ============================================================================== >>> --- head/usr.sbin/jail/command.c Fri Feb 6 17:43:13 2015 >>> (r278322) >>> +++ head/usr.sbin/jail/command.c Fri Feb 6 17:54:53 2015 >>> (r278323) >>> @@ -112,6 +112,12 @@ next_command(struct cfjail *j) >>> if (!bool_param(j->intparams[IP_MOUNT_FDESCFS])) >>> continue; >>> j->comstring = &dummystring; >>> + break; >>> + case IP_MOUNT_PROCFS: >>> + if (!bool_param(j->intparams[IP_MOUNT_PROCFS])) >>> + continue; >>> + j->comstring = &dummystring; >>> + break; >> Did you intend on adding another break? The code would previously fall >> through to the next case statement... >>> case IP__OP: >>> case IP_STOP_TIMEOUT: >>> j->comstring = &dummystring; > > Yes. The code did indeed previously fall to the next case, but it was a > no-op: the next case only had the same exact assignment that had just taken > place (j->comstring = &dummystring). The lack of a break that had existed > before was just some sloppy coding that I didn't notice at the time because > it didn't actually change any behavior. Nonetheless it seemed worth > correcting when I noticed it.
True. I looked at the code afterwards and it looks ok. mount.procfs doesn’t exist in my environment. Is that command correct? $ which mount.procfs; echo $? 1
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
