From nobody Thu Dec 1 10:01:37 2022 X-Original-To: freebsd-current@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with UTF8SMTP id 4NNBSD6w7dz4jxt2 for ; Thu, 1 Dec 2022 10:01:48 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-current@dino.sk) Received: from cm0.netlabit.sk (mailhost.netlabit.sk [84.245.65.72]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with UTF8SMTPS id 4NNBSD39H2z4QH8; Thu, 1 Dec 2022 10:01:48 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-current@dino.sk) Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; none Received: from zeta.dino.sk ([84.245.95.254]) (AUTH: LOGIN milan, TLS: TLSv1.3,256bits,TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) by cm0.netlabit.sk with ESMTPSA id 000000000256D710.0000000063887B82.0001237A; Thu, 01 Dec 2022 11:01:38 +0100 Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2022 11:01:37 +0100 From: Milan Obuch To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Cc: Alexander Leidinger , Alan Somers , Rick Macklem , Peter Eriksson , bz@freebsd.org Subject: Re: RFC: nfsd in a vnet jail Message-ID: <20221201110137.08b2b68c@zeta.dino.sk> In-Reply-To: <20221201102925.Horde.uAC-87YyIRDDnqJTmvsFwNm@webmail.leidinger.net> References: <82103A1E-9D39-47B0-9520-205583C8B680@lysator.liu.se> <20221201102925.Horde.uAC-87YyIRDDnqJTmvsFwNm@webmail.leidinger.net> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.19.1 (GTK+ 2.24.33; amd64-portbld-freebsd13.1) List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-current List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-freebsd-current@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4NNBSD39H2z4QH8 X-Spamd-Bar: ---- X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-4.00 / 15.00]; REPLY(-4.00)[]; ASN(0.00)[asn:5578, ipnet:84.245.64.0/18, country:SK]; TAGGED_RCPT(0.00)[] X-Rspamd-Pre-Result: action=no action; module=replies; Message is reply to one we originated X-ThisMailContainsUnwantedMimeParts: N On Thu, 01 Dec 2022 10:29:25 +0100 Alexander Leidinger wrote: > Quoting Alan Somers (from Tue, 29 Nov 2022 > 17:28:10 -0700): > > > On Tue, Nov 29, 2022 at 5:21 PM Rick Macklem > > wrote: > > >> So, what do others think of enforcing the requirement that each > >> jail have its own file systems for this? > > > > I think that's a totally reasonable requirement. Especially so for > > ZFS users, who already create a filesystem per jail for other > > reasons. > > While I agree that it is a reasonable requirement, just a note that > we can not assume that every existing jail resides on its own file > system. The base system jail infrastructure doesn't check this, and > the ezjail port doesn't either. The iocage port does it. > My position would be 'recommended, but not forced-to' one. I have various installations with jails sharing parts of filesystem (like ports or src tree for development, or even local git repository), or even running with exactly the same directory as root of number of jails. Probably not a common scenario for sure, but still useful. Regards, Milan