Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 21:24:41 -0700 From: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> To: "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org> Cc: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> Subject: Re: Jail FS questions. Message-ID: <20031010042440.GA11546@rot13.obsecurity.org> In-Reply-To: <20031010004639.A28590@ganymede.hub.org> References: <20030803200948.GA10712@lewiz.org> <200310091700.09658.kennyf@pchg.net> <20031009211629.T28590@ganymede.hub.org> <20031009212824.Q28590@ganymede.hub.org> <20031010005515.GH587@lewiz.org> <20031009221555.W28590@ganymede.hub.org> <20031010033143.GA11384@rot13.obsecurity.org> <20031010004639.A28590@ganymede.hub.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--Nq2Wo0NMKNjxTN9z Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, Oct 10, 2003 at 12:48:49AM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote: >=20 >=20 > On Thu, 9 Oct 2003, Kris Kennaway wrote: >=20 > > On Thu, Oct 09, 2003 at 10:19:46PM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote: > > > > > > If I use unionfs as the ``base'' for the jail then every directory = seems > > > > to be automagically owned by the person that mounted it (i.e. root). > > > > This causes me problems for stuff like mailspool, etc. I think thi= s is > > > > the way unionfs works though, not an issue I am personally having. > > > > > > Ah, neat ... I'd never noticed that before ... its never affected any= thing > > > as far as I've experienced though, but we don't unionfs mount /var, as > > > there is a bug in unionfs dealing with sockets that mounting /var cau= sing > > > the server to crash repeatedly ... > > > > See..that's just what I'm talking about. Software that "works fine as > > long as you remember not to do X, Y or Z, which will crash the system" > > is what is called "not production quality". Advocating that users > > (which are not the same as testers, or developers) use it anyway on > > their production systems is irresponsible. >=20 > Shooting down ppl that are willing to test and report bugs is equally as > irresponsible though, and I've been seeing alot of that ... Okay, so you're changing the topic (we were talking about users, not testers). > I don't remember whom it was that did it, but I remember a bunch of > PRs closed recently with the 'big scary warning' as the excuse for > ignoring the PRs ... the bugs that the reports revolved around > haven't gone away, but someon felt taht since ppl are warned against > using it, that those that do shouldn't be filling up GNaTs with PRs > about it ... You acknowledge that you are aware of the opinion of a lot of the developers that many of the bugs in unionfs are systemic and are impossible to fix without a rewrite of much of the kernel. There just isn't a lot of value in having GNATS full of reports of impossible-to-fix bugs in known-buggy software. People who report such bugs often need to be reminded of the realities: firstly, that what they have run into is the documented, expected behaviour; and secondly that they should not expect it to be fixed any time soon. The appropriate solution is to suspend the PR with a note to this effect. Kris --Nq2Wo0NMKNjxTN9z Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQE/hjSIWry0BWjoQKURAsibAJ4znEAEKCz3NDGYoB++8q2RzgnEFwCg1ClN kqrrU7bAQXIb6qe/8eO+Cqw= =PqPd -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Nq2Wo0NMKNjxTN9z--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20031010042440.GA11546>