From owner-freebsd-stable Sat Oct 9 12:17: 7 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from gw.nectar.com (gw.nectar.com [209.98.143.44]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BE0714DF3 for ; Sat, 9 Oct 1999 12:17:04 -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 4185EC006; Sat, 9 Oct 1999 14:17:04 -0500 (CDT) Received: from bone.nectar.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bone.nectar.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2E941D87; Sat, 9 Oct 1999 14:16:58 -0500 (CDT) X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0.2 2/24/98 X-Exmh-Isig-CompType: repl X-Exmh-Isig-Folder: mlist/freebsd/stable 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: stable@FreeBSD.ORG In-reply-to: References: Subject: Re: merging current's jail functionality to stable Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Date: Sat, 09 Oct 1999 14:16:58 -0500 Message-Id: <19991009191658.F2E941D87@bone.nectar.com> Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On 9 October 1999 at 13:28, Will Andrews wrote: [snip] > Since -STABLE must have binary compatability in order to support third-party > vendors' binary programs (which were compiled with what is the current suser > function), we cannot risk changing the suser() syscall and causing breaks in > such vendors' programs. I think some points are being missed. suser is not a syscall. It is a kernel interface, used only in the kernel. Therefore, the only possible vendor binaries that can be affected are kernel loadable modules (KLDs). Not applications. I don't know of any vendor KLDs, but that doesn't mean there aren't any. > People who really want jail() on their -STABLE machines can, IMO, > simply take Jacques' patch and patch it themselves (of course, > unless they have the exact same release he's got, they're gonna have > rejects all over the place ;). And also, of course, their work would > get overwritten when/if they cvsup, but that's their own damn > problem. ;) If those folks that privately mailed me and asked that this work be done would stand up now, that would be nice :-) > So, I say, leave it out of -STABLE until 4.0-CURRENT becomes -STABLE > (probably February-March 2000?). Vendors have plenty of time until > then to reimplement their suser()-dependent features. Again, what vendors? :-) From the sounds of things, it would be easier for some to swallow if I came up with a different set of patches that don't change the interface of suser, and maintain two suser implementations for another 5 or 6 months --- although I don't know that we can say for sure when 4.0 will become -STABLE. Jacques Vidrine / n@nectar.com / nectar@FreeBSD.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message