Q: executables in /lib/udev , is this correct?

Jeremy Henty onepoint at starurchin.org
Fri Aug 22 15:24:12 PDT 2008

On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 03:31:36PM -0300, Valter Douglas Lisbôa Jr. wrote:
> Em Thursday 21 August 2008 14:51:12 Jeremy Henty escreveu:
> > I  just noticed that  both my  LFS 6.1  and 6.3  systems installed
> > useful  executables  such as  vol_id  into  /lib/udev rather  than
> > anywhere in my $PATH .
> This executables is  not need to be in the PATH,  they are called by
> udev tools in background.  They Follow the /usr/lib/<program>/* idea
> to  separate  libraries,  backstage  daemons, whatever  from  system
> aplications runned in terminals,

I understand  what you say,  but I expected something  different after
reading a good article "How To Manage Your Disk By UUID On Linux"


which says things like

    1. If  you don't know the  UUID of your  disk, you can find  it by
    using one of the several commands below:

    host # vol_id /dev/sda3

which fails on LFS because vol_id is not in $PATH .  So maybe there is
a  case  for putting  such  things  in /bin  rather  than  /lib ?   It
certainly suggests that other distros  do that, since the writer seems
to assume  that these commands will  be in $PATH .   (I understand the
reasons for not putting them in /usr .)

(BTW, I'm not  trying to lay down the law here,  just raising an issue
than confused me and wondering what it means.)

> ... personaly,  I put the iptables  modules there [not  in /usr] too
> (my Firewall starts very early :-) )

OK, I'm interested.  I consider myself fairly security-conscious but I
can't  see the  need  to  start iptables  before  mounting local  file
systems  like /usr  .   As long  as  your firewall  starts before  the
network, what  could possibly go wrong?  (Famous  last words!)  Unless
your /usr is networked?


Jeremy Henty 

More information about the lfs-support mailing list