Q: executables in /lib/udev , is this correct?
Valter Douglas Lisbôa Jr.
douglas at trenix.com.br
Sat Aug 23 07:32:38 PDT 2008
Em Friday 22 August 2008 19:24:12 Jeremy Henty escreveu:
> 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 ?
/sbin then, it's a system command.
> 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 .)
Well, like the articles says you can use blkid too.
I look in my gentoo system and see that /sbin/vol_id is a symlink
to /lib/udev/vol_id. Perhaps putting it in other directories than /lib/udev
can break the udev if it expect find this files in /lib and have this
hardcoded (I don't know if this is true, it's a assumption).
I find vold_id calls on udev rules of gentoo systems too using the symlink in
> (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?
My network system is in /sbin and I start the iptables scripts just after it.
I do this because I create a distro based on Linux From Scratch to use in my
clients and for default it has a base (INPU/OUTPUT) firewall rules. So,
before any other things goes up for network services, I start it in the base
boot. Like I use some very simples boot scripts I put it on early start aside
udev, mounts and others.
In fact the FORWARD rules are load after, with network daemons and others in
the case of the host be a gateway.
> Jeremy Henty
Valter Douglas Lisbôa Jr.
Trenix - IT Solutions
"Nossas Idéias, suas Soluções!"
contato at trenix.com.br
More information about the lfs-support