Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 2 Dec 2022 06:44:30 -0800
From:      Rick Macklem <rick.macklem@gmail.com>
To:        Olivier Certner <olivier.freebsd@free.fr>
Cc:        freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: RFC: nfsd in a vnet jail
Message-ID:  <CAM5tNy5a9GYjJcjXLQvsjF77Gsu6yej5XR=mMTAuVKWxoNfR1A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <1955021.aDjkhKmpDe@ravel>
References:  <CAM5tNy7CQaBTRWG0m0aN6T0xG2L2zSQJGa%2BatGaH%2BmW%2BwEpdyQ@mail.gmail.com> <20221201110137.08b2b68c@zeta.dino.sk> <CAM5tNy5pkONY5X9a3LU0u2EmcA3OYpeS9AdpSuYK9gMHAVFxmg@mail.gmail.com> <1955021.aDjkhKmpDe@ravel>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--000000000000a7568c05eed96081
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

On Fri, Dec 2, 2022 at 2:03 AM Olivier Certner <olivier.freebsd@free.fr>
wrote:

> 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?
>
Certainly not in general. Current plan is for the case of mountd/nfsd.

To enforce it for cases where mountd/nfsd is not being run would
definitely be a POLA violation.

rick


>
> 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
>
>
>

--000000000000a7568c05eed96081
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_default" style=3D"fon=
t-family:monospace"><br></div></div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div dir=
=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Fri, Dec 2, 2022 at 2:03 AM Olivier Certne=
r &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:olivier.freebsd@free.fr">olivier.freebsd@free.fr</a=
>&gt; wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px=
 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Hi,=
<br>
<br>
&gt; (snip)<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; #2 - Require separate file systems and run mountd inside the jail(s).<=
br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; I think that allowing both alternatives would be too confusing<br>
&gt; and it seems that most want mountd to run within the jail(s).<br>
&gt; As such, unless others prefer #1, I think #2 is the way to go.<br>
<br>
Just to be sure I&#39;ve understood correctly: You plan to make a separate =
<br>
filesystem as jail&#39;s root a requirement but only in the case of using <=
br>
mountd(8) in the jail? Or in general?<br></blockquote><div><span class=3D"g=
mail_default" style=3D"font-family:monospace">Certainly not in general. Cur=
rent plan is for the case of mountd/nfsd.</span></div><div><span class=3D"g=
mail_default" style=3D"font-family:monospace"><br></span></div><div><span c=
lass=3D"gmail_default" style=3D"font-family:monospace">To enforce it for ca=
ses where mountd/nfsd is not being run would</span></div><div><span class=
=3D"gmail_default" style=3D"font-family:monospace">definitely be a POLA vio=
lation.</span></div><div><span class=3D"gmail_default" style=3D"font-family=
:monospace"><br></span></div><div><span class=3D"gmail_default" style=3D"fo=
nt-family:monospace">rick</span></div><div><span class=3D"gmail_default" st=
yle=3D"font-family:monospace"></span>=C2=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail=
_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204=
,204);padding-left:1ex">
<br>
While I think doing so in the NFSv4/mountd case is indeed a good idea, I do=
n&#39;t <br>
think enforcing it in general is. It would generally degrade the multiple <=
br>
jails management experience on UFS (in the absence of a volume manager), wh=
ere <br>
all jails have roots in the same filesystem (to avoid allocating/deallocati=
ng <br>
space as jails come and go or must be resized).<br>
<br>
Regards.<br>
<br>
-- <br>
Olivier Certner<br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote></div></div>

--000000000000a7568c05eed96081--



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAM5tNy5a9GYjJcjXLQvsjF77Gsu6yej5XR=mMTAuVKWxoNfR1A>