From owner-freebsd-arch Sat Jul 15 22:36: 2 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from rover.village.org (rover.village.org [204.144.255.49]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBF7B37BA49; Sat, 15 Jul 2000 22:35:57 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from imp@harmony.village.org) Received: from harmony.village.org (harmony.village.org [10.0.0.6]) by rover.village.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA74170; Sat, 15 Jul 2000 23:35:56 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from imp@harmony.village.org) Received: from harmony.village.org (localhost.village.org [127.0.0.1]) by harmony.village.org (8.9.3/8.8.3) with ESMTP id XAA50733; Sat, 15 Jul 2000 23:35:37 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <200007160535.XAA50733@harmony.village.org> To: Brian Fundakowski Feldman Subject: Re: SysctlFS Cc: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 15 Jul 2000 21:14:17 EDT." References: Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 23:35:36 -0600 From: Warner Losh Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG In message Brian Fundakowski Feldman writes: : On Sat, 15 Jul 2000, Warner Losh wrote: : : > In message Brian Fundakowski Feldman writes: : > : On Sat, 15 Jul 2000, Robert Watson wrote: : > : : > : > On Sat, 15 Jul 2000, Brian Fundakowski Feldman wrote: : > : > : > : > > We could create a way for jailed processes to "break out" into the : > : > > canonical name space. This is a description of possible semantics for : > : > : > : > What canonical namespace would that be? : > : : > : Unless you can think of anything else that could possibly be the : > : canonical namespace, struct vnode *rootvnode. : > : > Put another way... : > : > If we have a jail that lives in /foo/bar, and we have ways to : > symboliclly link outside /foo/bar, that's a big problem. : : Why? It's got exactly the same considerations as the "true" root being : able to mount(2) things into a jail or mknod(2). You shouldn't be able to mount thinks in jail or mknod. While in jail, you cannot do a mknod right now. While in jail, you can't do a mount. Creating holes in this scheme makes me extremely nervous. : > Also, you really don't want too many devices in a jail's /dev tree. : > You really wouldn't want devfs for jail unless you could limit it : > severely. And that's going to be hard to write, I think. : : But you could create multiple mounts (instances) of devfs which each : contain a specific subset of the devfs proper and do the "symlink : breakout" accordingly :) An aspect of jail classes, if you will. Why bother with a symlink? Why not have a reference to the real dev_t? Warner To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message