From owner-svn-src-head@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Feb 4 10:42:02 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-src-head@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 45DC0B17; Tue, 4 Feb 2014 10:42:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from cyrus.watson.org (cyrus.watson.org [198.74.231.69]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1838C1C8B; Tue, 4 Feb 2014 10:42:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from c0216.aw.cl.cam.ac.uk (c0216.aw.cl.cam.ac.uk [128.232.100.216]) by cyrus.watson.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1AD9146B0C; Tue, 4 Feb 2014 05:41:58 -0500 (EST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.1 \(1827\)) Subject: Re: svn commit: r261266 - in head: sys/dev/drm sys/kern sys/sys usr.sbin/jail From: "Robert N. M. Watson" In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2014 10:41:57 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <201401291341.s0TDfDcB068211@svn.freebsd.org> <20140129134344.GW66160@FreeBSD.org> <52E906CD.9050202@freebsd.org> <20140129222210.0000711f@unknown> <52EBDD42.4020702@freebsd.org> To: Ivan Voras X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1827) Cc: src-committers@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, Gleb Smirnoff , James Gritton , svn-src-head@freebsd.org, Alexander Leidinger X-BeenThere: svn-src-head@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: SVN commit messages for the src tree for head/-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2014 10:42:02 -0000 On 4 Feb 2014, at 10:05, Ivan Voras wrote: > On 31 January 2014 18:28, James Gritton wrote: >> On 1/31/2014 5:34 AM, Robert Watson wrote: >=20 >>> Frankly, I'd like to see this backed out and not reintroduced. If = it must >>> be retained, then it needs a much more clear warning that enabling = this >>> feature disables Jail's security model. Don't use the word = 'obviate', >>> instead explicitly state that root within the jail can escape the = jail. >>=20 >> I'll do at least the next-best thing: back it out and hope to = re-introduce >> it. Clearly it could use some further discussion. >=20 > How about outputting both a kernel (i.e. logged) and userland messages > when the jail is created (or the parameter is changed, if it can?) > which say something like "DANGER! The root within this jail (jid=3D%d) > can escape the jail" or something like it? That seems reasonably loud. At the very least, we need a more clear structuring and presentation of = "insecure" options in the jail man page. E.g., a dedicated section for = options that may have serious security consequences and a nice = introduction to the section contextualising those concerns. Robert=