"Device not configured" FAQ: some incompleteness

On Sat, 2 Sep 2006, Aleksey Cheusov wrote:
> But there is another case:
>
> % pfctl -f /etc/pf.conf
> pfctl: /dev/pf: Device not configured
> %
>
> 'modload pf.o' help in this case...

I've added something to 
http://www.netbsd.org/Documentation/k
ernel/index.html#device-not-configured, 
it should be life within an hour.

If you have any suggestions for better wording let me know!


  - Hubert

On Mon, Sep 04, 2006 at 12:47:25AM +0200, Hubert Feyrer
wrote:
> 
> On Sat, 2 Sep 2006, Aleksey Cheusov wrote:
> >But there is another case:
> >
> >% pfctl -f /etc/pf.conf
> >pfctl: /dev/pf: Device not configured
> >%
> >
> >'modload pf.o' help in this case...
> 
> I've added something to 
> http://www.netbsd.org/Documentation/k
ernel/index.html#device-not-configured, it 
> should be life within an hour.
> 
> If you have any suggestions for better wording let me
know!

This is in fact the same case as with the above, just with a
pseudo-device
instead of a physical device.

BTW your statement that "Using ktrace(1)  can help you
find what's going
on inside a command, and to determine you what's being
accessed that may
cause the error message." is misleading. There is no
need to use ktrace in
the case mentioned. pfctl tells you what device node did it
attempt to
use. (/dev/pf)

Pavel

On Mon, 4 Sep 2006, Pavel Cahyna wrote:
> This is in fact the same case as with the above, just
with a pseudo-device
> instead of a physical device.
>
> BTW your statement that "Using ktrace(1)  can
help you find what's going
> on inside a command, and to determine you what's being
accessed that may
> cause the error message." is misleading. There is
no need to use ktrace in
> the case mentioned. pfctl tells you what device node
did it attempt to
> use. (/dev/pf)

Want to send me a patch to update the text?
I'm not 100% sure what you're suggesting to change...


  - Hubert

On Mon, Sep 04, 2006 at 10:36:27PM +0200, Hubert Feyrer
wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Sep 2006, Pavel Cahyna wrote:
> >This is in fact the same case as with the above,
just with a pseudo-device
> >instead of a physical device.
> >
> >BTW your statement that "Using ktrace(1)  can
help you find what's going
> >on inside a command, and to determine you what's
being accessed that may
> >cause the error message." is misleading.
There is no need to use ktrace in
> >the case mentioned. pfctl tells you what device
node did it attempt to
> >use. (/dev/pf)
> 
> Want to send me a patch to update the text?
> I'm not 100% sure what you're suggesting to change...

--- index.xml.~1.11.~	Mon Sep  4 22:46:30 2006
+++ index.xml	Mon Sep  4 23:29:37 2006
 -662,7
+662,7 
             node in <code>/dev</code> (e.g. a
SCSI disk), this means
             that the driver can't find the specific device
unit you
             tried to access, e.g. accessing a SCSI disk
that isn't
-            there.
+            there, or the driver is not compiled in the
kernel.
           </para>
 
           <para>
 -676,18
+676,33 
             <code>/var/run/dmesg.boot</code> (a
saved copy of the
             boot time autoconfiguration output).
           </para>
-        </listitem>
-        <listitem>
-          <para>
-	    Another case where this can happen is when a certain
kernel
-	    subsystem, e.g. some firewall, is not compiled into
the
-	    kernel or loaded as an LKM, and when data is directed
at
-	    that subsystem, e.g. when &man.pfctl.8; or
&man.ipf.8;
-	    are used to load firewall rules.  Using
&man.ktrace.1;
-	    can help you find what's going on inside a command,
and
-	    to determine you what's being accessed that may cause
-	    the error message.
-          </para>
+
+	  <para>
+	    Another case where this can happen is when a certain
+	    kernel subsystem which is implemented as a
pseudo-device
+	    is not compiled into the kernel or loaded as an LKM
and a
+	    configuration program wants to configure it using a
device
+	    node in <code>/dev</code>. For example
when a firewall is
+	    not compiled into the kernel or loaded as an LKM and
the
+	    &man.pfctl.8; or &man.ipf.8; utility attempts
to load
+	    firewall rules. If such utility does not print a
helpful
+	    message indicating what device it tried to use,
+	    &man.ktrace.1; can help you find what's going on
inside a
+	    command, and to determine you what's being accessed
that
+	    may cause the error message.
+	  </para>
+
+	  <para>
+	    And it can happen in many other cases when a
nonexistent
+	    device or device without a driver is accessed, like
when a
+	    nonexistent network interface name is passed to
+	    &man.ifconfig.8; (in this case, if you are sure
that you
+	    have the right driver, maybe the interface must be
+	    explicitely created by a command like
<code>ifconfig vlan0
+	    create</code> &mdash; this is true for most
of the network
+	    pseudo-devices like &man.sl.4;, &man.vlan.4;
or
+	    &man.stf.4;).
+	  </para>
         </listitem>
       </itemizedlist>
     </sect3>