From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Sun May 5 08:50:49 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E09DBCF0; Sun, 5 May 2013 08:50:49 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from baptiste.daroussin@gmail.com) Received: from mail-wi0-x234.google.com (mail-wi0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::234]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F069F693; Sun, 5 May 2013 08:50:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wi0-f180.google.com with SMTP id h11so1735573wiv.13 for ; Sun, 05 May 2013 01:50:45 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to :user-agent; bh=GBbOVdO2zwjuuuNgJ0bypOYXr8eZJlQZTt2xT5hmmdQ=; b=Y94BCG2DQyxYsfddsq9QHYQesYG2HiypyzGFB05ECAaaM0Wt0SlHD11AEEZJrsi3UG g0MAGx78t3WeMfH0u0yN2n/iGW6F6Z4r6IqTHu1lAjFH2MifJPT5qjBiMtyusdUp9jMg 1oxEso4XBLgtScM5+xC0NUcEWBbgfwgmQCSP7ud35FqXjbuQ8qk/ZfNrUIND9SY5dcWf er59w11DdsvY3LDGifoBF4n5lVOyfw2jI8dNIgcSNwRzt8rVSMEH3OOIGlgqq7kWBNY7 +FkfSJpQRHwwD2t7WtT5AB/4wNcGP/Ol9XffGlzlMgi8GjcwlZhVjnjd+Kzte0BoWlkS UkVA== X-Received: by 10.180.206.204 with SMTP id lq12mr4212269wic.30.1367743845147; Sun, 05 May 2013 01:50:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ithaqua.etoilebsd.net (ithaqua.etoilebsd.net. [37.59.37.188]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id fa6sm7617223wic.9.2013.05.05.01.50.43 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 05 May 2013 01:50:44 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Baptiste Daroussin Date: Sun, 5 May 2013 10:50:42 +0200 From: Baptiste Daroussin To: Jase Thew Subject: Re: Marking some FS as jailable Message-ID: <20130505085042.GA12114@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> References: <20130212194047.GE12760@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> <511B1F55.3080500@FreeBSD.org> <20130214132715.GG44004@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> <511CF77A.2080005@FreeBSD.org> <20130214145600.GI44004@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> <511CFBAC.3000803@FreeBSD.org> <20130214150857.GK44004@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> <5185AF20.5010308@FreeBSD.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="M9u+pkcMrQJw6us1" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5185AF20.5010308@FreeBSD.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Cc: jail@FreeBSD.org, fs@FreeBSD.org, Jamie Gritton X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 05 May 2013 08:50:50 -0000 --M9u+pkcMrQJw6us1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, May 05, 2013 at 02:00:16AM +0100, Jase Thew wrote: > On 14/02/2013 15:08, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 07:58:52AM -0700, Jamie Gritton wrote: > >> On 02/14/13 07:56, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > >>> On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 07:40:58AM -0700, Jamie Gritton wrote: > >>>> On 02/14/13 06:27, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > >>>>> On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 10:06:29PM -0700, Jamie Gritton wrote: > >>>>>> On 02/12/13 12:40, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I would like to mark some filesystem as jailable, here is the one= I need: > >>>>>>> linprocfs, tmpfs and fdescfs, I was planning to do it with adding= a > >>>>>>> allow.mount.${fs} for each one. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Anyone has an objection? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Would it make sense for linprocfs to use the existing allow.mount.= procfs > >>>>>> flag? > >>>>> > >>>>> Here is a patch that uses allow.mount.procfs for linsysfs and linpr= ocfs. > >>>>> > >>>>> It also addd a new allow.mount.tmpfs to allow tmpfs. > >>>>> > >>>>> It seems to work here, can anyone confirm this is the right way to = do it? > >>>>> > >>>>> I'll commit in 2 parts: first lin*fs, second tmpfs related things > >>>>> > >>>>> http://people.freebsd.org/~bapt/jail-fs.diff > >>>> > >>>> There are some problems. The usage on the mount side of things looks > >>>> correct, but it needs more on the jail side. I'm including a patch j= ust > >>>> of that part, with a correction in jail.h and further changes in ker= n_jail.c > >>> > >>> Thank you the patch has been updated with your fixes. > >> > >> One more bit (literally): PR_ALLOW_ALL in sys/jail.h needs updating. > >> > >> - Jamie > > > > Fixed thanks > > > > Bapt > > >=20 > Hi, >=20 > Is this functionality likely to make its way into HEAD and if so, do you= =20 > have any idea as to the timescale? >=20 > Regards, >=20 I would love to but I m still waiting for a security review noone has done = yet ;( --M9u+pkcMrQJw6us1 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAlGGHWIACgkQ8kTtMUmk6Ez1ZACeJ5Uwa0vIA4iVc2u9SOWWzDN0 d4sAnA82Ma/SF2OK+OXJQZO6XzxdL7tZ =0ajI -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --M9u+pkcMrQJw6us1--