From owner-freebsd-stable Sat Oct 9 9:48:33 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from megaweapon.zigg.com (megaweapon.zigg.com [206.114.60.8]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3708714BF3 for ; Sat, 9 Oct 1999 09:48:28 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from matt@zigg.com) Received: from localhost (matt@localhost) by megaweapon.zigg.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA25259; Sat, 9 Oct 1999 12:48:23 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from matt@zigg.com) Date: Sat, 9 Oct 1999 12:48:22 -0400 (EDT) From: Matt Behrens To: Jacques Vidrine Cc: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: merging current's jail functionality to stable In-Reply-To: <19991009160651.314441D87@bone.nectar.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Sat, 9 Oct 1999, Jacques Vidrine wrote: : I forgot one more, which is probably the most desirable if there : are a significant number of 3rd-party binaries to support: : = Don't change suser, but bring in the rest of the changes needed : for jail (add suser_xxx and update the 16 or so files that need : the new semantics). This means that suser in -STABLE and -CURRENT : are still different (as it is today), but it puts of breaking : binary compatibility until 4.0-RELEASE. Is suser needed to properly support jail? Without suser being updated, will we have a hole in the implementation? Matt Behrens Owner/Administrator, zigg.com Chief Engineer, Nameless IRC Network To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message