Re: can chroot be made safe for non-root?

Shaya Potter (spotter@cs.columbia.edu)
20 Oct 2002 10:49:14 -0400

Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: Andrea Arcangeli: "Re: [PATCH] linux-2.5.43_vsyscall_A0"
Previous message: Adrian Bunk: "[2.5 patch] allow only one Toshiba Type-O IR Port driver in the"
In reply to: Bernd Eckenfels: "Re: can chroot be made safe for non-root?"

On Sun, 2002-10-20 at 06:40, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
> In article <200210191942.g9JJg2U26376@marc2.theaimsgroup.com> you wrote:
> > IIRC, FreeBSD allow a chroot'ed process to chroot again if and only if
> > the
> > new root is a subdirectory of the initial chroot. This allows things
> > like
> > traditional, chrooting anonymous FTP to be run under an initial chroot.
>
> well, you can only changeroot in a subdir anyway, so this is not the point
> that freebsd is allowing a chroot in a chroot. As far as I know they simply
> solved the break out issue.

didn't see the mail this is in response to, but are you talking about
FreeBSD's jail() syscall? or are you talking about chroot() actually
being able to nest?

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Next message: Andrea Arcangeli: "Re: [PATCH] linux-2.5.43_vsyscall_A0"
Previous message: Adrian Bunk: "[2.5 patch] allow only one Toshiba Type-O IR Port driver in the"
In reply to: Bernd Eckenfels: "Re: can chroot be made safe for non-root?"