Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2009 22:47:58 +0000 (GMT) From: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> To: Dmitry Morozovsky <marck@rinet.ru> Cc: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: jail: external and localhost distinction Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.00.0902062245490.89719@fledge.watson.org> In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.0901291237020.91263@woozle.rinet.ru> References: <alpine.BSF.2.00.0901290021000.91263@woozle.rinet.ru> <alpine.BSF.2.00.0901290855010.70708@fledge.watson.org> <alpine.BSF.2.00.0901291237020.91263@woozle.rinet.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 29 Jan 2009, Dmitry Morozovsky wrote: > Thank you for clarification, now I see this is actually expected behaviour > :) > > Would then starting second jail with the same root and, say, 127.10.0.1 as > an address be a workaround? There's no technical reason you can't have more than one jail using the same file system root, and even IP -- you'll find that ps(1) in one jail can't see processes in the other (and can't signal, etc) but otherwise works as expected. Of course, any given process has to be a member of at most one of the two. Robert N M Watson Computer Laboratory University of Cambridge
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.BSF.2.00.0902062245490.89719>