On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 01:43:59AM +0900, kikuc...@uranus.dti.ne.jp wrote:
> > I only briefly looked at the patch. The fact that you perform outside of
> > ipcperm looks suspicious but may be harmless, so at best it's a bad
> > style. If you need ipc mechanism-specifc functions, make them call
> >
Hi Mateusz,
Thank you for your reply.
(and sorry about my ISP mail service jammed...)
I still want to resolve sysv ipc confilicts between jails somehow.
(It's welcome if someone else do, but I couldn't find any working example
yet...)
> I only briefly looked at the patch. The fact that you per
On Mon, Jun 08, 2015 at 01:42:21AM +0900, kikuchan wrote:
> From my curiosity, is my patch a technically bad?
> Is there race condition in it? Or, enabling key_t separation for jail
> could trigger race condition, perhaps?
>
I only briefly looked at the patch. The fact that you perform outside of
On Sun, Jun 07, 2015 at 04:43:16PM +0900, kikuchan wrote:
> Hi Mateusz,
>
> Thanks for your reply!
>
> First of all, I intend to *jail* SysV IPC user completely.
> (unless user really want to interact with each other between jails)
>
> I think SysV IPC is simple but obsolete, so you can design
Hi Mateusz,
Thanks for your reply!
First of all, I intend to *jail* SysV IPC user completely.
(unless user really want to interact with each other between jails)
I think SysV IPC is simple but obsolete, so you can design whatever
you want for jail system.
Also, I want keep everything simple.
M
On Sun, Jun 07, 2015 at 12:04:17AM +0900, kikuchan wrote:
> Sorry for cross-post to freebsd-stable, but I want to get more
> feedback for my patch.
> (The patch is;
> http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-jail/attachments/20150606/7736309b/attachment.bin)
>
>
> I believe this patch FIXES cu
