Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 9 Jul 2002 09:41:02 -0400 (EDT) | From | Bill Davidsen <> | Subject | Re: prevent breaking a chroot() jail? |
| |
On Fri, 5 Jul 2002, Ville Herva wrote:
> In general, I wonder if it would make sense to aim for something like > jail(2). Chroot has its shortcomings, and I take it that many of them have > to be preserved to maintain standard compliance. Jail isolates processes > more completely than chroot is ever ment to. > > FreeBSD implements jail by adding a jail pointer to struct proc - I'm not > sure how much of that should/could be done with mere capabilities in linux, > and how much of the "fortificated chroot" implementation jail has overlaps > with Al Viro's namespaces. > > All in all, I've seen suprisingly little conversation about jail on > lkml. What do people think of it?
Not having had the problem of jailing things for almost a decade, I haven't been following this field, but certainly after looking at POSIX and chroot, I don't think we can both be secure and compliant. Adding jail() would be a better approach, preferably with a BSD-compatible API so people could move programs here.
I have been doing some reading on UML, and it sounds as if that could be at least as secure as jail, but it is almost certainly higher overhead. I want to try running multiple machines in UML and see how well it works. If disk is the only issue it's cheap enough to to have enough per application, but I doubt if it's practical per-user in most cases.
-- bill davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com> CTO, TMR Associates, Inc Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |