Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2022 11:03:01 +0100 From: Olivier Certner <olivier.freebsd@free.fr> To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Rick Macklem <rick.macklem@gmail.com> Subject: Re: RFC: nfsd in a vnet jail Message-ID: <1955021.aDjkhKmpDe@ravel> In-Reply-To: <CAM5tNy5pkONY5X9a3LU0u2EmcA3OYpeS9AdpSuYK9gMHAVFxmg@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAM5tNy7CQaBTRWG0m0aN6T0xG2L2zSQJGa%2BatGaH%2BmW%2BwEpdyQ@mail.gmail.com> <20221201110137.08b2b68c@zeta.dino.sk> <CAM5tNy5pkONY5X9a3LU0u2EmcA3OYpeS9AdpSuYK9gMHAVFxmg@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi, > (snip) > > #2 - Require separate file systems and run mountd inside the jail(s). > > I think that allowing both alternatives would be too confusing > and it seems that most want mountd to run within the jail(s). > As such, unless others prefer #1, I think #2 is the way to go. Just to be sure I've understood correctly: You plan to make a separate filesystem as jail's root a requirement but only in the case of using mountd(8) in the jail? Or in general? While I think doing so in the NFSv4/mountd case is indeed a good idea, I don't think enforcing it in general is. It would generally degrade the multiple jails management experience on UFS (in the absence of a volume manager), where all jails have roots in the same filesystem (to avoid allocating/deallocating space as jails come and go or must be resized). Regards. -- Olivier Certner
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1955021.aDjkhKmpDe>