On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 10:02:18AM +0200, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote: P> Implementation wouldn't be probably too hard, but I can't agree it should P> be committed. We need to know where jail's virtualization ends and I think P> it is too far. Of course it will be cool to have those sysctl on per-jail P> basics, as well as others from security.bsd. tree P> (like security.bsd.suser_enabled), but I'm not sure this is the right way P> to go. P> P> Any other opinions? If someone convince me we should do it, I can do it. A more general solution will be better, but harder to implement: make some sysctl branches (e.g. security.bsd) local per jail, and possibility to change them only from host machine. -- Totus tuus, Glebius. GLEBIUS-RIPN GLEB-RIPEReceived on Thu May 20 2004 - 23:14:33 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:37:54 UTC