From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Feb 13 05:06:33 2013
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: fs@FreeBSD.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org
 [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1])
 by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C67CB821;
 Wed, 13 Feb 2013 05:06:33 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from jamie@FreeBSD.org)
Received: from m2.gritton.org (gritton.org [199.192.164.235])
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CEE0AA2;
 Wed, 13 Feb 2013 05:06:32 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from glorfindel.gritton.org (c-174-52-130-157.hsd1.ut.comcast.net
 [174.52.130.157]) (authenticated bits=0)
 by m2.gritton.org (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r1D56Vgf070145;
 Tue, 12 Feb 2013 22:06:31 -0700 (MST)
 (envelope-from jamie@FreeBSD.org)
Message-ID: <511B1F55.3080500@FreeBSD.org>
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 22:06:29 -0700
From: Jamie Gritton <jamie@FreeBSD.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD amd64; en-US;
 rv:1.9.2.24) Gecko/20120129 Thunderbird/3.1.16
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@FreeBSD.org>
Subject: Re: Marking some FS as jailable
References: <20130212194047.GE12760@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net>
In-Reply-To: <20130212194047.GE12760@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: fs@FreeBSD.org
X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14
Precedence: list
List-Id: Filesystems <freebsd-fs.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-fs>,
 <mailto:freebsd-fs-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-fs>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-fs@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-fs-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-fs>,
 <mailto:freebsd-fs-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 05:06:33 -0000

On 02/12/13 12:40, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I would like to mark some filesystem as jailable, here is the one I need:
> linprocfs, tmpfs and fdescfs, I was planning to do it with adding a
> allow.mount.${fs} for each one.
>
> Anyone has an objection?
>
> regards,
> Bapt

Would it make sense for linprocfs to use the existing allow.mount.procfs
flag?

- Jamie