Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 07:58:52 -0700 From: Jamie Gritton <jamie@FreeBSD.org> To: Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@FreeBSD.org> Cc: jail@FreeBSD.org, fs@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Marking some FS as jailable Message-ID: <511CFBAC.3000803@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20130214145600.GI44004@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> References: <20130212194047.GE12760@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> <511B1F55.3080500@FreeBSD.org> <20130214132715.GG44004@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> <511CF77A.2080005@FreeBSD.org> <20130214145600.GI44004@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 02/14/13 07:56, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 07:40:58AM -0700, Jamie Gritton wrote:
>> On 02/14/13 06:27, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
>>> On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 10:06:29PM -0700, Jamie Gritton wrote:
>>>> On 02/12/13 12:40, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I would like to mark some filesystem as jailable, here is the one I need:
>>>>> linprocfs, tmpfs and fdescfs, I was planning to do it with adding a
>>>>> allow.mount.${fs} for each one.
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyone has an objection?
>>>>
>>>> Would it make sense for linprocfs to use the existing allow.mount.procfs
>>>> flag?
>>>
>>> Here is a patch that uses allow.mount.procfs for linsysfs and linprocfs.
>>>
>>> It also addd a new allow.mount.tmpfs to allow tmpfs.
>>>
>>> It seems to work here, can anyone confirm this is the right way to do it?
>>>
>>> I'll commit in 2 parts: first lin*fs, second tmpfs related things
>>>
>>> http://people.freebsd.org/~bapt/jail-fs.diff
>>
>> There are some problems. The usage on the mount side of things looks
>> correct, but it needs more on the jail side. I'm including a patch just
>> of that part, with a correction in jail.h and further changes in kern_jail.c
>
> Thank you the patch has been updated with your fixes.
One more bit (literally): PR_ALLOW_ALL in sys/jail.h needs updating.
- Jamie
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?511CFBAC.3000803>