From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Sep 26 19:43:55 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D5587F5D; Fri, 26 Sep 2014 19:43:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from m2.gritton.org (gritton.org [63.246.134.121]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A1FC6BD8; Fri, 26 Sep 2014 19:43:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.0.34] (c-50-168-192-61.hsd1.ut.comcast.net [50.168.192.61]) (authenticated bits=0) by m2.gritton.org (8.14.9/8.14.9) with ESMTP id s8QJScr7095728; Fri, 26 Sep 2014 19:28:39 GMT (envelope-from jamie@gritton.org) Message-ID: <5425BE60.5020900@gritton.org> Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2014 13:28:32 -0600 From: James Gritton User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-jail@freebsd.org, "freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.org Stable" Subject: Re: fdescfs patch for working hierarchical jails References: <0B3648E9-21DC-4691-A6A9-26DE2C40947B@verweg.com> In-Reply-To: <0B3648E9-21DC-4691-A6A9-26DE2C40947B@verweg.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2014 19:43:55 -0000 On 9/25/2014 3:40 AM, Ruben van Staveren wrote: > Hi, > > Could a committer have a look at https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192951 ? > > This enables fdescfs in hierarchical jails, would be nice to have this for 10.1 > > Thanks! > > Best Regards, > Ruben van Staveren This would have to go into current first, and then MFC. Considering 10.1 is getting close to release, I suspect it wouldn't be allowed in. Also, I'm not sure I'd want to implement this in quite the proposed way: it might suffice (from a security viewpoint) to use the existing allow.mount.devfs for mounting fdescfs. - Jamie