From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1R1lRa-0007bL-P0 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 08 Sep 2011 20:43:31 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1BBFE21C3DA; Thu, 8 Sep 2011 20:43:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net (mailout-de.gmx.net [213.165.64.23]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 9DFCC21C397 for ; Thu, 8 Sep 2011 20:40:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 08 Sep 2011 20:40:06 -0000 Received: from p5B082D1C.dip.t-dialin.net (EHLO pc.localnet) [91.8.45.28] by mail.gmx.net (mp007) with SMTP; 08 Sep 2011 22:40:06 +0200 X-Authenticated: #13997268 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX19nw1wGvXJn67jEmL8ZpmrXonK9pja/XEnjp9+NYx 0qu0/6baSwLus1 From: Michael Schreckenbauer To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] /dev/sda* missing at boot Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2011 22:40:07 +0200 Message-ID: <1589058.SM9yHjJMk3@pc> User-Agent: KMail/4.7.0 (Linux/2.6.38-gentoo; KDE/4.7.0; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <20110908220536.55dd3798@rohan> References: <201108191109.34984.michaelkintzios@gmail.com> <12534676.jn0Id4Zse9@pc> <20110908220536.55dd3798@rohan> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: a7c189d871ca1e3ddd721f10218b2c06 Am Donnerstag, 8. September 2011, 22:05:36 schrieb Alan McKinnon: > On Thu, 08 Sep 2011 19:11:04 +0200 > > Michael Schreckenbauer wrote: > > > Then design the correct solution and implement it. If it's > > > technically sound, it will prevail. I think it's a rather > > > complicated problem with a non trivial solution, but the code is > > > there if you feel like give it a try. > > > > Where did I write, that I am in the position to write such a beast? > > I only take the freedom to name this a design flaw in udev. > > It needs things from userspace, which are not yet available at the > > point it requests them. An initramsfs is a workaround for this, not a > > proper fix. > > If that is the argument from the udev devs you just quoted, then I do > not understand it at all. It's my understanding, that this is their point. > Why can there not be a restriction that udev may only run code in the > traditional / space (i.e. it will not attempt to run code in the /usr > or /home spaces)? Yes. I really wonder, why we have /bin, /sbin and /lib > Device nodes are a root function; root is the only user that should > dictate how device nodes are created; root is the only user that can > normally write to / and thereby create udev's rules and rulesets. > > In what valid way does access to /usr become something that udev may be > required to support? As udev is able to run arbitrary scripts, there *might* be some code, that requires something from /usr/*. So they want this beast be mounted, before udev starts doing it's job. > Not arguing with *you* here Michael, just wondering about the validity > of the position you quoted Understood :) Regards, Michael