From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jamie Lokier Subject: Re: [PATCH] private mounts Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 20:22:23 +0100 Message-ID: <20050428192223.GB2895@mail.shareable.org> References: <20050424205422.GK13052@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> <20050424210616.GM13052@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> <20050424213822.GB9304@mail.shareable.org> <20050425152049.GB2508@elf.ucw.cz> <20050425190734.GB28294@mail.shareable.org> <20050426092924.GA4175@elf.ucw.cz> <20050426140715.GA10833@mail.shareable.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Pavel Machek , Al Viro , Miklos Szeredi , hch@infradead.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@osdl.org Return-path: Received: from mail.shareable.org ([81.29.64.88]:42154 "EHLO mail.shareable.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262241AbVD1TWf (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Apr 2005 15:22:35 -0400 To: Eric Van Hensbergen Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org Eric Van Hensbergen wrote: > > Does chroot into /proc/NNN/root cause the chroot'ing process to adopt > > the namespace of NNN? Looking at the code, I think it does. > > I've been thinking about this a bit more...would you even need chroot? > (wouldn't exposing chroot functionality to a user incur additional > security risk? I guess it would be okay as long as you were only > chrooting to one of your other process' roots?) You don't need to let an ordinary user do chroot. The login process can do it before it changes uid to the user, the same as it does to set up all the other per-user parameters. -- Jamie