On Tue, 1 Dec 2009, Linda Messerschmidt wrote:
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 10:14 AM, Ivan Voras <ivo...@freebsd.org> 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?
(I seem to have caught this thread rather late in the game due to being on
travel) -- Ivan is wrong about nullfs, it's broken due to a bug, not a
feature, and that bug is not present when using a single file system. He's
thinking of unionfs semantics, where if it worked it would be a bug. :-)
Robert N M Watson
Computer Laboratory
University of Cambridge
_______________________________________________
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
