From owner-freebsd-security  Tue Jul  8 00:08:28 1997
Return-Path: <owner-security>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id AAA02100
          for security-outgoing; Tue, 8 Jul 1997 00:08:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from critter.dk.tfs.com ([140.145.230.252])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id AAA02095
          for <security@FreeBSD.ORG>; Tue, 8 Jul 1997 00:08:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from critter.dk.tfs.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by critter.dk.tfs.com (8.8.6/8.8.5) with ESMTP id IAA01257;
	Tue, 8 Jul 1997 08:11:20 +0200 (CEST)
To: proff@suburbia.net
cc: robert@cyrus.watson.org (Robert Watson), sef@kithrup.com,
        security@FreeBSD.ORG
From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@dk.tfs.com>
Subject: Re: Security Model/Target for FreeBSD or 4.4? 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 08 Jul 1997 07:29:23 +1000."
             <19970707212923.12941.qmail@suburbia.net> 
Date: Tue, 08 Jul 1997 08:11:20 +0200
Message-ID: <1255.868342280@critter.dk.tfs.com>
Sender: owner-security@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

In message <19970707212923.12941.qmail@suburbia.net>, proff@suburbia.net writes
:

>PHK (FreeBSD core) decided to zorch the LD_CHROOT patch under the
>basis that the efficiency gains could be realised by hardlinking
>all your system libraries into the chroot()ed area. The mind boggles.

Hmm, let me try to say it my way:

PHK (FreeBSD core) decided that considering the rather marginal gain, 
there is no point in deliberately creating holes in the chroot armour.

--
Poul-Henning Kamp           | phk@FreeBSD.ORG       FreeBSD Core-team.
http://www.freebsd.org/~phk | phk@login.dknet.dk    Private mailbox.
whois: [PHK]                | phk@tfs.com           TRW Financial Systems, Inc.
Power and ignorance is a disgusting cocktail.