--Kj7319i9nmIyA2yE
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thu, Sep 01, 2005 at 05:52:13PM -0500, Eric Haszlakiewicz wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 01, 2005 at 02:49:32PM -0700, Bill Studenmund wrote:
> >=20
> > I'm not sure what I think of this. But I'll defer that for other messag=
es.=20
> > I am concerned that we may introduce more problems than we solve.
>=20
> 	I think it makes the emul path stuff act more like a chroot
> environment.  The time when it might cause a problem is when that
> path gets fed to something outside the "chroot", i.e. a non-emul
> process.  It seems easier to think about solving issues wrt information
> moving across that pseudo-root boundary, than wrt inconsistent views
> of the filesystem within a single process depending on the syscall.
> 	However, I haven't actually come up with any concrete examples
> of problems/benefits; I was kind of hoping someone here would notice
> something obvious one way or the other. :)

Why is this a good thing? My gut instinct is that if we want a chroot, we
should chroot.

Yes, the semi-chroot we have has issues, but I think we will run into more
of them if we lie like this. I also think part of it is I usually run=20
linux apps outside of the /emul/linux area.

I guess I wouldn't mind if we did something where /emul/linux/ disapeard=20
and / turned into /../ or something like that.

I'll be honest, I am not dead set against this. Concerned, but not dead=20
set. So I'm willing to be convinced. :-)

Take care,

Bill

--Kj7319i9nmIyA2yE
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (NetBSD)

iD8DBQFDF5pMWz+3JHUci9cRAqaYAJwPIDnP0n5EbhOEKDSpyp92xfzKcQCfUuiP
6N3vJSaagYDVQI13mEoABY8=
=AoQ9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--Kj7319i9nmIyA2yE--