From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 131F4138903 for ; Fri, 8 Feb 2013 07:30:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E66AFE05ED; Fri, 8 Feb 2013 07:30:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-we0-f176.google.com (mail-we0-f176.google.com [74.125.82.176]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 25EBEE0534 for ; Fri, 8 Feb 2013 07:30:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-we0-f176.google.com with SMTP id s43so2844067wey.35 for ; Thu, 07 Feb 2013 23:30:19 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=TJGj4nx85rFhYzd2w6rDLQzGafMAcne8j/SBarRmLQc=; b=iN0iSiXLlGyxRBwsdwH3Br59Ff2vRhstOGryjWa+4z4t679P15xNvLwMw7GamHbncp 0hRban59yvdJSXG1N0b+cRCdMNPVV0whm28NzhYiNxfdKexe6CaQzoMO7jbPxhr2dkqE pYvMzjtJlGNixScU0bjxKxadY4OTMjVCaxmmMKZEa2eLomFTijUth+R30j6DR3RTMSyY vvnlfXXyD3KgtEo4BZ2UHmZhrlMdGNArQz8Vx/UOevujVKbbWJrdf9Gyhek3Qadnlzx7 NXrWzGpzMRD2NrqCwxhyNgevI81qNFV6C5uqYVuf572Bw7me36NTF+h2EA3b+c9lVd0U VfdA== X-Received: by 10.194.161.135 with SMTP id xs7mr7579578wjb.41.1360308619756; Thu, 07 Feb 2013 23:30:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.1.21.16] (dustpuppy.is.co.za. [196.14.169.11]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id cu7sm12616161wib.8.2013.02.07.23.30.17 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 07 Feb 2013 23:30:18 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <5114A94A.3010007@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2013 09:29:14 +0200 From: Alan McKinnon User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130114 Thunderbird/17.0.2 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 To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] udev-191 bit me. Insufficient ptys References: <20130203185145.4008d87f@weird.wonkology.org> <5113E717.7020402@libertytrek.org> <201302071753.56717.peter@humphrey.ukfsn.org> <51141466.3030109@libertytrek.org> <51141E97.3080304@libertytrek.org> In-Reply-To: <51141E97.3080304@libertytrek.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 121c0766-cc54-48fb-9b9c-a93aba371b3d X-Archives-Hash: f227a3cdab654cba250ac922fc843e44 On 07/02/2013 23:37, Tanstaafl wrote: > On 2013-02-07 4:25 PM, Paul Hartman wrote: >> On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 2:53 PM, Tanstaafl >> wrote: >>> I think that a lot of people will misread that like I (we) did... > >> I believe he is correct and /dev/shm is irrelevant for this discussion. > > Ok, thanks, but... and no offense... > > I am not willing to gamble on breaking a remotely accessed server based > on someone's 'I believe that this is correct' comment. > > When the news item says: > >> need to verify the fstype for possible /dev line in /etc/fstab is >> devtmpfs (and not, for example, tmpfs) > > 'Possible /dev line' in no way is clear that it means a line that has > ONLY /dev on it. /dev/shm - which is also of type tmpfs - can easily be > read to be included. > >> The important thing to note is that entries for precisely /dev and >> /proc > > Mine has this in it: > >> # NOTE: The next line is critical for boot! >> none /proc proc >> defaults 0 0 > > So, you're saying that this line, that is prefaced with a comment that > says it is CRITICAL FOR BOOT, is not even needed? > > This is a server that was initially installed back in 2005, so maybe > this is cruft that is no longer needed? Yes, that is a line that came out of an ancient baselayout. I have a few of those lying around myself. To get back to the original topic, it is only /dev and /proc that are in scope of this discussion. /dev/shm is just a filesystem which just happens to be mounted inside the /dev hierarchy and it's that way because a standard (POSIX?) just happens to mention that it's a good idea. Completely irrelevant to udev. The confusion comes about because the dev who made the original announcement is probably not a native English speaker and got his grammar and language mangled. The missing step is not no-one proof-read and clarified the original message for him -- Alan McKinnon alan.mckinnon@gmail.com