From owner-freebsd-security Mon Oct 11 5:17:30 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from gw.nectar.com (gw.nectar.com [209.98.143.44]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B11BC14E39; Mon, 11 Oct 1999 05:17:22 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nectar@nectar.com) Received: from bone.nectar.com (bone.nectar.com [10.0.0.105]) by gw.nectar.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 019BEC006; Mon, 11 Oct 1999 07:17:21 -0500 (CDT) Received: from bone.nectar.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bone.nectar.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D58C1D8D; Mon, 11 Oct 1999 07:17:21 -0500 (CDT) X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0.2 2/24/98 X-Exmh-Isig-CompType: repl X-Exmh-Isig-Folder: mlist/freebsd/security X-PGP-RSAfprint: 00 F9 E6 A2 C5 4D 0A 76 26 8B 8B 57 73 D0 DE EE X-PGP-RSAkey: http://www.nectar.com/nectar-rsa.txt X-PGP-DSSfprint: AB2F 8D71 A4F4 467D 352E 8A41 5D79 22E4 71A2 8C73 X-PGP-DHfprint: 2D50 12E5 AB38 60BA AF4B 0778 7242 4460 1C32 F6B1 X-PGP-DH-DSSkey: http://www.nectar.com/nectar-dh-dss.txt From: Jacques Vidrine To: Will Andrews Cc: freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Reply-To: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG In-reply-to: <19991010204844.A9523@shadow.blackdawn.com> References: <19991008170540.A1618@fever.semiotek.com> <19991010204844.A9523@shadow.blackdawn.com> Subject: Re: chroot jail in pre 4.0 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 07:17:21 -0500 Message-Id: <19991011121721.5D58C1D8D@bone.nectar.com> Sender: owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org [Crossposting to -stable and -security, but Reply-To: set to -stable.] On 10 October 1999 at 20:48, Will Andrews wrote: > On Fri, Oct 08, 1999 at 05:05:40PM -0400, Justin Wells wrote: > Actually.. Jacques Vidrine is in the process of (has > finished?) backporting jail(2,8) to -STABLE. Patches for -STABLE can be found at http://www.nectar.com/freebsd/jail.html. > This is currently being > discussed on freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG. So far, however, I'm pretty > certain that the developers will choose not to commit due to a small > chance that the commit may break binaries (KLD's) built by third-party > vendors (if any). Jacques questions whether there are any or not.. please > see freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG mailing list archives. So far, the community on -STABLE has identified one third-party KLD (from 4Front), but it does not use suser and therefore wouldn't be broken. For the sake of discussion, I've also made a set of patches that retain binary compatibility. It demonstrates the cost of binary compatibility well. One would have to traverse the process list on every call to suser. (You need to access the proc structure to implement the jail functionality, but suser only gets the ucred structure). At the moment, I'm of the opinion that binary compatibility with 3rd party KLDs is unimportant, given the number of KLDs that use suser that I know of (zero). Time will tell if there are more. Jacques Vidrine / n@nectar.com / nectar@FreeBSD.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message