If this is not the appropriate place, I apologize.
Installing on an instance on vultr.com from booting from the standard image
hangs. This is pretty well documented, and the equally well documented
workaround is disabling vtrnd.
But are there lingering consequences from setting hint.vtrnd.disab
I think this is worthy of third party testing now.
See https://people.freebsd.org/~rmacklem/nfsd-vnet-prison-setup.txt
I still haven't tried NFSv3 and I have not ported nfsuserd into the vnet,
but most NFSv4 setups don't need it anyhow.
Good luck with it if you test it, rick
ps: Just replied to a
Hi Michael,
On Fri, Dec 02, 2022 at 12:02:15PM +0100, Michael Tuexen wrote:
> > On 2. Dec 2022, at 00:30, Gordon Bergling wrote:
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > I am currently having the following build work error on a recent
> > -CURRENT.
> >
> > = ===> usr.bin/less (all)
> > -16372 bytes available
>
> To enforce it for cases where mountd/nfsd is not being run would
> definitely be a POLA violation.
I could not agree more.
Thanks for the clarification.
--
Olivier Certner
On Fri, Dec 2, 2022 at 2:03 AM Olivier Certner
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > (snip)
> >
> > #2 - Require separate file systems and run mountd inside the jail(s).
> >
> > I think that allowing both alternatives would be too confusing
> > and it seems that most want mountd to run within the jail(s).
> > As su
On Fri, 02 Dec 2022 11:03:01 +0100
Olivier Certner wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > (snip)
> >
> > #2 - Require separate file systems and run mountd inside the
> > jail(s).
> >
> > I think that allowing both alternatives would be too confusing
> > and it seems that most want mountd to run within the jail(s).
Hi,
> (snip)
>
> #2 - Require separate file systems and run mountd inside the jail(s).
>
> I think that allowing both alternatives would be too confusing
> and it seems that most want mountd to run within the jail(s).
> As such, unless others prefer #1, I think #2 is the way to go.
Just to be sur
