From owner-freebsd-security Wed May 17 10: 6:42 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from www.menzor.dk (menzor.org [195.249.147.160]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADD2537B7A6; Wed, 17 May 2000 10:06:37 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from ml@seeberg.dk) Received: from sos (userhost.mdes.dk [130.228.127.200] (may be forged)) by www.menzor.dk (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id TAA22837; Wed, 17 May 2000 19:52:28 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from ml@seeberg.dk) Message-ID: <020c01bfc022$68e03b50$deff58c1@sos> From: "Morten Seeberg" To: "Robert Watson" , References: Subject: Re: Jail: Problems? Proper Usage? Status? Practicality? Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 19:07:38 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6700 Sender: owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > One way to substantially improve jail scalability would be to allow the > same (read-only) file system to be present in all jails as the root, with > only jail-local data being modified. You can imagine gratuitously using I havenīt had time to play with jail, but according to what PHK said at a seminar where he explained the jail functionality, he said that you could have just 1 filesystem, and mount it via NFS. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message