On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 4:48 PM, Lennart Poettering <mzerq...@0pointer.de> wrote: > 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?
Yes, indeed, this is precisely what we want. I had missed that feature. I'll do a patch. Thanks! Tom _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel