On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 16:45:49 +0200 Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote: > On Tue, Jul 24, 2007 at 06:03:47PM +0400, Boris Samorodov wrote: > > On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 15:33:33 +0200 Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote: > > > As you can see, nullfs doesn't have 'jail' flag. The only jail-friendly > > > file system currently is ZFS. Nullfs is a good candidate for a > > > jail-friendly file system, but is not marked as such yet. > > > > Does somebody know if only a flag is missing or not? > You may try changing the line in /sys/fs/nullfs/null_vfsops.c from: > VFS_SET(null_vfsops, nullfs, VFCF_LOOPBACK); > to: > VFS_SET(null_vfsops, nullfs, VFCF_LOOPBACK | VFCF_JAIL); This didn't help: ----- btest# sysctl security.jail security.jail.jailed: 1 security.jail.mount_allowed: 1 security.jail.chflags_allowed: 1 security.jail.allow_raw_sockets: 0 security.jail.enforce_statfs: 2 security.jail.sysvipc_allowed: 1 security.jail.socket_unixiproute_only: 1 security.jail.set_hostname_allowed: 1 btest# lsvfs Filesystem Refs Flags -------------------------------- ----- --------------- ufs 6 nfs 0 network procfs 0 synthetic devfs 3 synthetic ntfs 0 msdosfs 0 nfs4 0 network nullfs 1 loopback, jail cd9660 0 read-only btest# df Filesystem 1K-blocks Used Avail Capacity Mounted on /dev/da0s1d 945804208 22136782 848003090 3% / btest# mount /usr/ports/distfiles /mnt mount: /usr/ports/distfiles : Operation not permitted ----- Thanks for the suggestion though. > but I don't think anyone did any security analysis of this yet. WBR -- Boris Samorodov (bsam) Research Engineer, http://www.ipt.ru Telephone & Internet SP FreeBSD committer, http://www.FreeBSD.org The Power To ServeReceived on Wed Jul 25 2007 - 12:46:13 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:39:15 UTC