From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Dec 1 15:22:04 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A564106568D; Tue, 1 Dec 2009 15:22:04 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from linda.messerschmidt@gmail.com) Received: from mail-fx0-f218.google.com (mail-fx0-f218.google.com [209.85.220.218]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C00AC8FC12; Tue, 1 Dec 2009 15:22:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: by fxm10 with SMTP id 10so4175004fxm.14 for ; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 07:22:03 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=ZlVk5vPIJIJFUjWA3kWoSdVA2QEK26kSQvE3bRa12+g=; b=AtAC1YQghR9a4cseMOKDVpwYftBc7a/SUf+MQ42mnZgfpZFSQNrszw9xdmWAIXh6ud 5bcVV6t6qyirSQSs87UqwwlPJtvIZDM6bhren9ja89uQDSaGw24rAuMSUyJ+G+baLIfA v9PajZf9RIJ3LaNx4g1fAtWjt79xe4gLny97M= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=aov8cfHlx733EMnevnHQ0qnhfnLuDwwcizM8CD5T7/J6TUxgqdF88+LE6QOS82A42Z hREZZz1Im1e8/alVgEdLsVNWJQO1citPQNahY5ypCim6SfB8XMWW+ROefPx9MDpvxeV4 GO2uVyj+E3aV0YXQzTPxf+EJRF8m8XMf2CA8U= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.89.6 with SMTP id b6mr2097949wef.100.1259680922851; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 07:22:02 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <20091130142950.GA86528@logik.internal.network> <20091130150127.GA82188@logik.internal.network> Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 10:22:02 -0500 Message-ID: <237c27100912010722g2f6c4647ga82370284bc26e20@mail.gmail.com> From: Linda Messerschmidt To: Ivan Voras Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: UNIX domain sockets on nullfs still broken? X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2009 15:22:04 -0000 On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 10:14 AM, Ivan Voras wrote: >> What's the sane solution, then, when the only method of communication >> is unix domain sockets? > > It is a security problem. I think the long-term solution would be to add a > sysctl analogous to security.jail.param.securelevel to handle this. Out of curiosity, why is allowing accessing to a Unix domain socket in a filesystem to which a jail has explicitly been allowed access more or less secure than allowing access to a file or a devfs node in a filesystem to which a jail has explicitly been allowed access?