On Sun, May 04, 2008 at 06:16:11PM -0700, Dan Price wrote: > > I agree that this should work, but zoneadm isn't ready yet: > > > > - it uses stat() not stat64() on the special device > > - for other than hsfs, it insists upon a raw device > > (Where is that hsfs special-case code?)
zoneadm looks for /usr/lib/fs/<type>/fsck, and assumes that an fsck pass is not necessary if it doesn't exist. > > The former is (presumably) a simple fix. The latter is trickier: we > > don't have a raw device to fsck. Perhaps zoneadm shouldn't be insisting > > on a fsck pass anyway, or maybe this just shouldn't be allowed. What do > > you think? > > Sorry-- I may be *totally* confused, but... > > Why couldn't one fsck an e.g. ufs image living in a file? fsck > seems to be OK with that at least for UFS. It works for UFS, but zoneadm insists upon a 'raw' device, and does fsck on that. pcfs refuses to fsck a file. udfs asks you, then refuses to do so anyway. I'm not sure fixing either of these are in scope. So I can change zoneadm to allow no raw device if special is a file, and zoneadmd to fsck the file, but this won't work for pcfs or udfs. Seem reasonable? > > > Two final questions: (1) is there any potential interaction with fsck(1m) > > > here? In other words, if the file we're looping back represents an FS > > > which requires an fsck stage, how will that work? > > > > Exactly like it does with lofiadm+mount today (or any direct mount > > invocation): it'll mount without checking. > > I guess what I meant was that with lofiadm + mounting today, presumably > I can specify fsck'ing in /etc/vfstab when I place a vfstab entry > there. Maybe no one does that, or even uses vfstab, since the lofi > devices don't persist across reboot. > > On the other hand, the man page suggests that one write a script to > persist lofi configurations (blech). I wish lofiadm just supported that > natively. I missed that part of the manpage, but I'm dubious as to its utility anyway. /etc/vfstab is getting less and less relevant. > > > (2) Will the lofi nodes created in this manner be visible in the > > > output of lofiadm(1m)? > > > > Yes. I did toy with an alternative where it won't appear in /devices/, > > but it was not nice implementation-wise, and after some thought felt > > that listing the lofi entries was the right thing to do anyway. > > Ok, thanks. You might wish to amend the proposal to specifically state > that. I think this record will do... cheers john
