On Mon, 2017-02-13 at 09:40 -0600, Jamie Strandboge wrote: > On Fri, 2017-02-10 at 14:44 +0100, Roberto Mier Escandón wrote: > > > > = Seccomp = > > Time: Feb 10 12:31:42 > > Log: auid=4294967295 uid=0 gid=0 ses=4294967295 pid=11048 comm="loolkit" > > exe="/snap/loolwsd/x17/usr/bin/loolforkit" sig=31 arch=c000003e > > 161(chroot) compat=0 ip=0x7fd0178dfb47 code=0x0 > > Syscall: chroot > > > This may be tricky as the paths > Whoops, this got cut off. Basically, just file a bug as I asked later. :)
> > > > I've solved that by plugging docker-support and all works fine. But that > > interface gives a lot of permissions, and the name maybe is not the most > > accurate for a case like this. > The docker-support interface should not be used for this. It is a so called > 'super-privileged' interface and like you said, grants way more than is > needed. > > > > > Shouldn't we have an interface allowing mknod, chroot and maybe ptrace > > for snaps creating their own chroot jails?. > As said, mknod is in progress. Can you file a bug for chroot? > > ptrace we could allow with 4.8+ kernels or if we add 'seccomp after ptrace' to > the list of kernel patches for snappy. > > -- > Snapcraft mailing list > Snapcraft@lists.snapcraft.io > Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/s > napcraft -- Jamie Strandboge | http://www.canonical.com
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- Snapcraft mailing list Snapcraft@lists.snapcraft.io Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/snapcraft
