Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 20:26:15 +0100 From: Chris Rees <crees@FreeBSD.org> To: David Windsor <dwindsor@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, freebsd-jail@freebsd.org Subject: Re: PID/UID namespaces Message-ID: <CADLo838voV_Xi%2BA_WjD3H7E_d4Qi%2BOdJYnHPoim5BbZAWnXFyg@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CAEXv5_igz7FLTipWeRKRM6DbTJ9-FDHZLjvhZ=929rmWNKQNww@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAEXv5_igz7FLTipWeRKRM6DbTJ9-FDHZLjvhZ=929rmWNKQNww@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 21 May 2012 14:47, David Windsor <dwindsor@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > While doing some research on FreeBSD jails, I came across an item in the > jails' TODO: > > > =A0 - be able to have a separate PID space for it > =A0 - be able to specify a separate UID space for it > > In other projects, these goals have been accomplished using namespaces. = =A0I > tried to see if PID/UID namespaces existed in BSD and came across somethi= ng > called Capsicum, a sandboxing project which does not appear to implement > outright namespaces for descriptors like PID/UID, but uses something call= ed > a "Process Descriptor." > > Is namespacing of PIDs and UIDs an eventual goal of the jails project of > FreeBSD? It would certainly prevent many common problems when setting up jails; UID collision is much more common than you'd think, given that the default UIDs remain the same. Chris
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CADLo838voV_Xi%2BA_WjD3H7E_d4Qi%2BOdJYnHPoim5BbZAWnXFyg>