Subject: Re: chroot(2)
To: None <email@example.com>
From: der Mouse <mouse@Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA>
Date: 10/05/1998 23:54:29
>> [...chroot jail...]
> This is one of the multitude of problems that exist for chroot.
> The other is that you can create dev entries and thus gain access to
> the entire machine.
> Add to the list presented so far:
> Shouldn't be able to load modules into the kernel.
Hang on a minute here.
chroot is not a jail. It can be part of a jail. It can also be used
for other, completely different, purposes, many of which would be
broken by having it magically do a bunch of things to turn it into a
This is not to say that the missing pieces of a jail shouldn't be
added. Just that they shouldn't be confused with chroot(2). The
reason I've been talking about having chroot(2) ever do anything
magical for anyone is to keep non-root processes that are in jails
from (ab)using chroot(2) to break out of the chroot portion of the
jail. Ideally, there would be two ways to chroot, a jail way and a
non-jail way. tar, which IIRC is what started this discussion, would
want to do a non-jail chroot; other things would want to do a jail
chroot. I haven't thought much about how this interacts with non-root
7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B