Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2014 14:06:49 +0200 From: Ruben van Staveren <ruben@verweg.com> To: James Gritton <jamie@gritton.org> Cc: freebsd-jail@freebsd.org, "freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.org Stable" <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: fdescfs patch for working hierarchical jails Message-ID: <0CF6D1D0-0721-4395-8290-C92C91FEA45C@verweg.com> In-Reply-To: <5425BE60.5020900@gritton.org> References: <0B3648E9-21DC-4691-A6A9-26DE2C40947B@verweg.com> <5425BE60.5020900@gritton.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[-- Attachment #1 --] Hi James, others, On 26 Sep 2014, at 21:28, James Gritton <jamie@gritton.org> wrote: > 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. I agree, probably better to do it that way indeed. > 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. Wouldn’t that be misleading? It would be better to mop up the various pseudofses under the monicker allow.mount.pseudofs. > > - Jamie - Ruben [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org iEYEARECAAYFAlQmqFkACgkQZ88+mcQxRw1prgCZAa8lliQyS3sCHuTRU9W8FZqE Ui8AnjCuMGPzDcrDRf/a1NmhMlhcqxgY =J99b -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?0CF6D1D0-0721-4395-8290-C92C91FEA45C>