[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <46F91417.9050600@davidnewall.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 23:28:47 +0930
From: David Newall <david@...idnewall.com>
To: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>
CC: Bill Davidsen <davidsen@....com>,
Philipp Marek <philipp@...ek.priv.at>, 7eggert@....de,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
majkls <majkls@...pere.com>, bunk@...tum.de,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: sys_chroot+sys_fchdir Fix
Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> Quoting David Newall (david@...idnewall.com):
>
>> Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
>>
>>> Quoting David Newall (david@...idnewall.com):
>>>
>>>
>>>> It might be tidy if pivot_root could be used (instead of a hack based on
>>>> a chroot bug), but it'd still be unportable.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> It can.
>>>
>>> Please re-read my previous msg.
>>>
>> I read it. Currently pivot_root can't be used to affect a single process.
>>
>
> No. If you unshare your mounts namespace immediately before pivot_root,
> then pivot_root will only affect that single process.
>
Bugger. You're right, I didn't read your previous message; I thought I
had but I was wrong.
>> unshare(CLONE_NEWNS);
>> chdir(new_dir);
>> pivot_root(new_dir, oldroot);
After further RTFMing, and assuming "any processes or threads which
use the old root directory" means what you imply, and surely it does,
then I agree: pivot_root already does the job. Does anybody still need
to use a bug in chroot?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists