Says who? Is this your requirement? Why?
I meant I don't see how it can be done differently.
If this is really a serious concern of yours, you have much bigger fish to
fry than sysctl(8).
Can you elaborate a bit more on this please?
___
freebsd
On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 8:33 PM, wrote:
>
>> Here is the catch. I know I can read-only mount most static filesystems
> from a template. However, the mutable ones have to be copied.
>
Says who? Is this your requirement? Why?
> Because someone might know the program memory, cpu or network usag
Did you specify elsewhere what a 'visible' does mean to you?
- if this means network connectivity then you can put jails on the same
network, e. g. the same address on a lo(4) interface
- if this means a read-only access to the directory located outside of a
jail then her4e is the tr
Hello.
2012/10/13 12:09:39 -0300 schu...@ime.usp.br => To Peter Vereshagin :
> > y
> > Hello.
> >
> > it's a -questions@ here, right? (=
>
> Indeed. :-)
Ouch! it's already not... But I Cc: there. Oops?
> > What's a specific of the case?
>
> I need quite a lot of such "jails", with some being a
y
Hello.
it's a -questions@ here, right? (=
2012/10/12 09:59:15 -0300 schu...@ime.usp.br => To
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org :
> In my system I use separate user accounts for running untrusted
> programs at the moment. While many will probably argue that jails
> are a superior solution, in my sp
In my system I use separate user accounts for running untrusted
programs at the moment. While many will probably argue that jails
are a superior solution, in my specific case its the inverse.
I know FreeBSD is not ready by default to have multiple untrusted
users in the system, at least from a se
