Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2021 00:31:04 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: jail@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 259770] stable/12: jail(2) failures after ca9ab8ea1774 Message-ID: <bug-259770-29815-5436fD98Ps@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-259770-29815@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-259770-29815@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D259770 Jamie Gritton <jamie@FreeBSD.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|New |Open CC| |jamie@FreeBSD.org --- Comment #1 from Jamie Gritton <jamie@FreeBSD.org> --- At first glance, it does seem legitimate to allow a directory descriptor limited to CAP_UNLINKAT, and likely enough other similar restrictions, I wo= nder if that's something we want to carve out. I'll admit that I generally like like the idea of daemons jailing themselves into somewhere like /var/empty,= and would want to encourage such behavior. And I also see the value in pidfile= (3). But the commit in question was made for security reasons, so I'd want to tr= ead very carefully here. For that reason, I've invited the others involved in = that commit to have their say on the matter. --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-259770-29815-5436fD98Ps>