On 2015-02-06 22:31, Garrett Cooper wrote:
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

I added mount.procfs as a jail parameter, but it's not a command. Just like the existing mount.devfs and mount.fdescfs aren't commands either. The reason these jail parameters exist is to ease the backward compatibility with the old rc-based jail system. It should be a simple case of doing for procfs exactly what I did for the other two, but apparently it isn't. It's likely related to something I'm missing in the proper way of modifying rc scripts.

- Jamie
_______________________________________________
svn-src-head@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-head
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-head-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Reply via email to