On Sun, Jun 8, 2014 at 3:51 AM, Otto Moerbeek <o...@drijf.net> wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 08, 2014 at 02:59:08AM -0430, Andres Perera wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Jun 8, 2014 at 2:24 AM, Janne Johansson <icepic...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > I don't think there is a word for "chroot back".
>>
>> I don't think you read, understood, and executed the sample.
>>
>> After chroot("/"), or chroot(FOO), you can't mknod(2), therefore the
>> description is wrong.
>
> What part is wrong?
>
> "alternate" directory might happen to be / itself.
Even though it's the same directory as the previous root directory?
How is it alternate, then?
What's alternating, other than the root directory, which is *the same*?
Either make this fd_rdir check a string comparison in addition to a
null-pointer check or change the docs instead of being confusing:
int
domknodat(struct proc *p, int fd, const char *path, mode_t mode, dev_t dev)
{
struct vnode *vp;
struct vattr vattr;
int error;
struct nameidata nd;
if ((error = suser(p, 0)) != 0)
return (error);
if (p->p_fd->fd_rdir)
return (EINVAL);
^^^^
While that's silly
> to do it's still an alternate to an unchrooted /.
>
> -Otto
