[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <201112081704.22453.arnd@arndb.de>
Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2011 17:04:22 +0000
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To: "John Stoffel" <john@...ffel.org>
Cc: Colin Walters <walters@...bum.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, morgan@...nel.org,
serue@...ibm.com, dhowells@...hat.com, kzak@...hat.com
Subject: Re: chroot(2) and bind mounts as non-root
On Wednesday 07 December 2011, John Stoffel wrote:
> >>>>> "Colin" == Colin Walters <walters@...bum.org> writes:
>
> Colin> I've recently been doing some work in software compilation, and it'd be
> Colin> really handy if I could call chroot(2) as a non-root user. The reason
> Colin> to chroot is to help avoid "host contamination" - I can set up a build
> Colin> root and then chroot in. The reason to do it as non-root is, well,
> Colin> requiring root to build software sucks for multiple obvious reasons.
>
> What's wrong with using 'fakeroot' or tools like that instead? Why
> does the Kernel need to be involved like this? I'm not against your
> proposal so much, as trying to understand how compiling a bunch of
> source requires this change.
I think the better question to ask is what is missing from 'schroot', which
is commonly used for exactly this purpose. Is it just about avoing the
suid bit for /usr/bin/schroot or something else?
Arnd
--
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