Quoting Joshua Hudson ([email protected]):
> Why would you want a virtual network device implementation? The whole
So that a jailed process can use the net but can't use your network
address (intercept ssh, imap/stunnel, etc).
> I do like the idea of patching in through LSM, however not everything
> can be done there.
> In particular, I could escape from the jail as implemented there by a
> classic chroot()
> trick.
As Alan Cox had noted, you can escape with the help of an outside
process, but the classic chroot(TEMPDIR);chdir(..);...;chroot(.)
did not work against either the namespace-based or certainly not the
older (inode_permission-based) implementation.
But in the end vserver with read-only bind mounts seems a better way to
go imo.
-serge
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
| |
 |