| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-Id: <200703212058.18067.s0348365@sms.ed.ac.uk> Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 20:58:18 +0000 From: Alistair John Strachan <s0348365@....ed.ac.uk> To: rol@...917.net Cc: "'LKML'" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: Why is /dev on a different filesystem ? [Kernel 2.6.20.3] On Wednesday 21 March 2007 19:13, Paul Rolland wrote: > So, obviously, /dev is on /, but the stat(2) says no. > Who is right, and where is the bug ? > > Kernel 2.4 had it right : /dev was on /, no doubt. Some distros will mount tmpfs over /dev so that a minimal "real dev" can be provided as a fallback, but udev can add and remove nodes from /dev ad hoc during regular runtime. So I don't think there's a bug and I don't think anything is lying. If you want the dev your distro gave you, just mount your rootfs on another mount point in read-only and run tar over that instead. -- Cheers, Alistair. Final year Computer Science undergraduate. 1F2 55 South Clerk Street, Edinburgh, UK. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists