Re: PROPOSAL: /proc/dev

Richard Gooch (rgooch@atnf.CSIRO.AU)
Sun, 11 Jan 1998 11:44:32 +1100

C. Scott Ananian writes:
> On Sat, 10 Jan 1998 Richard Gooch <rgooch@atnf.CSIRO.AU> wrote:
>
> > Theodore Y. Ts'o writes:
> > [...]
> > > I thought you said devfs would be compatible with people who need to
> > > create a subset of /dev with character and block devices in (say)
> > > /u1/ftp/dev for the purpose of creating chroot'ed jail....
>
> > Er, I don't think there is a problem.
> [...]
> > Installation during the transition phase
> > ========================================
> >
> > Currently, not all device drivers in the kernel have been modified to
> > use devfs. To allow booting of kernels with and without devfs support,
> > you will want to copy the contents of /dev to /olddev. Then, remove
> > entries in /dev which are now available in devfs and make them
> > symbolic links to the entries in /olddev.
> > Finally, edit your /etc/fstab or boot scripts so that devfs is mounted
> > over /olddev on bootup. If devfs is supported, accessing devices
> > supported by devfs will follow the symlinks to devfs. If devfs is not
> > supported, accessing those same devices will follow the symlinks to
> > /olddev which contains only old-style device nodes.
> > Devices not supported by devfs will be found directly on /dev.
> > Simple! You can also follow this principle for chroot gaols.
>
> Well, it doesn't sound so simple, but I'll take your word for it.
> I assume that this means that I can make a chroot jail using *only*
> old-style dev entries (forgoing the new-fangled devfs) if I like?
> If not, why not?

Drivers not converted to support devfs will require ordinary device
nodes. Those nodes may reside on a devfs just like on any other FS.
Does that answer your question?

Regards,

Richard....