On Sun, Jun 8, 2014 at 12:16 PM, Janne Johansson wrote:
> It feels like you are trying to convince someone that
> chroot("/");
> equals not being chrooted at all.
Not at all. I'm trying to convince someone to explain what chrooted
means, preferably without changing current semantics.
chroot(2),
It feels like you are trying to convince someone that
chroot("/");
equals not being chrooted at all.
In my view several things happen when a pid is started in a chroot,
including
1. the dir used as a parameter for the chroot will always be its own parent
dir so that you may never again go above it
On Sun, Jun 8, 2014 at 3:51 AM, Otto Moerbeek 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 wrote:
>> > I don't think there is a word for "chroot back".
>>
>> I don't think you read, understood, and executed the sample
On Sun, Jun 8, 2014 at 4:21 AM, Otto Moerbeek 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 wrote:
>> > I don't think there is a word for "chroot back".
>>
>> I don't think you read, understood, and executed the sample
On Sun, Jun 08, 2014 at 02:59:08AM -0430, Andres Perera wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 8, 2014 at 2:24 AM, Janne Johansson 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)
On Sun, Jun 8, 2014 at 2:24 AM, Janne Johansson 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.
Once you limit yourself
> into a chro
I don't think there is a word for "chroot back". Once you limit yourself
into a chroot, you are stuck in it and get special treatment until you
exit. Apart from why mknod wants to fail inside chroots, having a simple
syscall being able to take you out of it would defeat the whole purpose, no?
20
The description of EINVAL in mknod(2) is wrong:
[EINVAL] The process is running within an alternate root
directory, as created by chroot(2).
Even if a process chroot()s back to /, it can't create a device node.
The program below exits with EINVAL:
#include
On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 3:12 PM, Miod Vallat wrote:
>> >> Is this some kind of security protection ?
>> >
>> > of course... see mknod(2).
>>
>> i read it and still does not understand.
>
> Check the description of EINVAL.
i was reading the (8) man pages :-(
So DESTDIR is nor working and make rel
> >> Is this some kind of security protection ?
> >
> > of course... see mknod(2).
>
> i read it and still does not understand.
Check the description of EINVAL.
On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 1:41 PM, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 07, 2014 at 01:30:01PM -0400, sven falempin wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 12:38 PM, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
>> > On Sat, Jun 07, 2014 at 12:28:28PM -0400, sven falempin wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 12:14 PM, sven fal
On Sat, Jun 07, 2014 at 01:30:01PM -0400, sven falempin wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 12:38 PM, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 07, 2014 at 12:28:28PM -0400, sven falempin wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 12:14 PM, sven falempin
> >> wrote:
> >> > On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 11:30 AM, O
On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 12:38 PM, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 07, 2014 at 12:28:28PM -0400, sven falempin wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 12:14 PM, sven falempin
>> wrote:
>> > On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 11:30 AM, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
>> >> On Sat, Jun 07, 2014 at 08:20:00AM -0400, sven fa
On Sat, Jun 07, 2014 at 12:28:28PM -0400, sven falempin wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 12:14 PM, sven falempin
> wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 11:30 AM, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> >> On Sat, Jun 07, 2014 at 08:20:00AM -0400, sven falempin wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 6:58 AM, Stuar
On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 12:14 PM, sven falempin wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 11:30 AM, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
>> On Sat, Jun 07, 2014 at 08:20:00AM -0400, sven falempin wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 6:58 AM, Stuart Henderson
>>> wrote:
>>> > On 2014-06-06, sven falempin wrote:
>>> >> De
On Sat, Jun 07, 2014 at 12:14:55PM -0400, sven falempin wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 11:30 AM, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 07, 2014 at 08:20:00AM -0400, sven falempin wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 6:58 AM, Stuart Henderson
> >> wrote:
> >> > On 2014-06-06, sven falempin wr
On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 11:30 AM, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 07, 2014 at 08:20:00AM -0400, sven falempin wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 6:58 AM, Stuart Henderson
>> wrote:
>> > On 2014-06-06, sven falempin wrote:
>> >> Dear misc readers,
>> >>
>> >> I try to understand why MAKEDEV is
On Sat, Jun 07, 2014 at 08:20:00AM -0400, sven falempin wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 6:58 AM, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> > On 2014-06-06, sven falempin wrote:
> >> Dear misc readers,
> >>
> >> I try to understand why MAKEDEV is failing inside my chroot, while i
> >> can manually create some de
On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 6:58 AM, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> On 2014-06-06, sven falempin wrote:
>> Dear misc readers,
>>
>> I try to understand why MAKEDEV is failing inside my chroot, while i
>> can manually create some dev with mknod .
>>
>> Like:
>> SCRIPT ${DESTDIR}/dev/MAKEDEV
On 2014-06-06, sven falempin wrote:
> Dear misc readers,
>
> I try to understand why MAKEDEV is failing inside my chroot, while i
> can manually create some dev with mknod .
>
> Like:
> SCRIPT ${DESTDIR}/dev/MAKEDEV dev/MAKEDEV
> SPECIAL cd dev; sh MAKEDEV ramdisk
> sh: [1]: mkno
Dear misc readers,
I try to understand why MAKEDEV is failing inside my chroot, while i
can manually create some dev with mknod .
Like:
SCRIPT ${DESTDIR}/dev/MAKEDEV dev/MAKEDEV
SPECIAL cd dev; sh MAKEDEV ramdisk
sh: [1]: mknod: console: Invalid argument
sh: [1]: mknod: tty: Inv
21 matches
Mail list logo
