On Sat, 25.10.14 01:36, Tom Gundersen (t...@jklm.no) wrote: > On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 9:32 PM, Lennart Poettering > <lenn...@poettering.net> wrote: > > On Tue, 14.10.14 16:19, Jan Synacek (jsyna...@redhat.com) wrote: > > > >> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1147248 > > > > Hmm, so far tmpfiles always adjust access modes, for all types of > > lines, if that's possible. I think this makes sense. The bug > > referenced above seems to suggest though that the access mode of the > > /dev/fuse file node is specified differently in two places > > though. This sounds like something to fix first? > > Well, the /run/tmpfiles.d/kmod.conf one is what the kernel exposes, > and then the udev rules overrides this. We could surely fix this case, > but in general I think we should expect that these may differ. > > To me it seems that we should not create devices nodes at all, except > in systemd-tmpfiles-setup-dev.service, the reason being that udev > rules are only applied to static nodes at udev startup, so any device > nodes created (or changed) after that may end up with the wrong > permissions (as seen here).
Hmm, so does this mean that the kmod tmpfiles converter really should suffixits lines with the exclamation mark? That way, only invocation of tmpfiles with --boot would honour those files, which are the ones we start at boot. Does that make sense? Lennart -- Lennart Poettering, Red Hat _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel