Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2009 18:51:36 +0300 (MSK) From: Dmitry Morozovsky <marck@rinet.ru> To: Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: jail: external and localhost distinction Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.00.0902071850130.21613@woozle.rinet.ru> In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.0902062245490.89719@fledge.watson.org> 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> <alpine.BSF.2.00.0902062245490.89719@fledge.watson.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 6 Feb 2009, Robert Watson wrote: RW> > Thank you for clarification, now I see this is actually expected behaviour RW> > :) RW> > RW> > Would then starting second jail with the same root and, say, 127.10.0.1 as RW> > an address be a workaround? RW> RW> There's no technical reason you can't have more than one jail using the same RW> file system root, and even IP -- you'll find that ps(1) in one jail can't RW> see processes in the other (and can't signal, etc) but otherwise works as RW> expected. Of course, any given process has to be a member of at most one of RW> the two. But, in the case of IP sharing, I suppose, the second process tries to bind to the same port will got "socket already in use", won't it? -- Sincerely, D.Marck [DM5020, MCK-RIPE, DM3-RIPN] [ FreeBSD committer: marck@FreeBSD.org ] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *** Dmitry Morozovsky --- D.Marck --- Wild Woozle --- marck@rinet.ru *** ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.BSF.2.00.0902071850130.21613>