Subject: Re: Separate /usr, etc...
To: NetBSD-current Discussion List <email@example.com>
From: Chuck Yerkes <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 12/18/2002 11:41:57
which doesn't cover someone adding in /usr/lib/libc.so.blah.N
(where N > current).
And it doesn't cover where fsck isn't needed, ever, on that
I'm still trying to figure out the benefits? Working around
poor planning? If your /usr is going to double in size, then
something else is going on.
Working around a very dynamic machine that might be getting
new builds every week? That's a different role and quite
Quoting Greg A. Woods (email@example.com):
> On Monday, 16 December 2002 at 14:43:36 -0800, Chuck Yerkes wrote:
> > I'm a very strong advocate of making /usr separate because I
> > mount it read-only. In fact, except for root, if it's got
> > a binary on it, it's RO. If it's got data, it's mounted
> > noexec, nosuid, nodev. Several reasons. And I've built machines
> > where the binaries are on disks PINNED read-only (trojan that!).
> It's far easier to get much better read-only coverage of your sensitive
> files using the immutable flag -- then you can protect scripts and
> binaries and static data files on the root FS too.
> Greg A. Woods
> +1 416 218-0098; <firstname.lastname@example.org>; <email@example.com>
> Planix, Inc. <firstname.lastname@example.org>; VE3TCP; Secrets of the Weird <email@example.com>