On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 4:53 PM, Tom Gundersen <t...@jklm.no> wrote: > 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.
And done: <http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.modules/1402>. Jan, does this look like it solves the original problem? Cheers, Tom _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel