Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2006 08:19:03 -0400 From: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Cc: Alex Lyashkov <shadow@psoft.net>, Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org>, Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> Subject: Re: jail extensions Message-ID: <200606070819.04301.jhb@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <20060607095824.W53690@fledge.watson.org> References: <1149610678.4074.42.camel@berloga.shadowland> <448633F2.7030902@elischer.org> <20060607095824.W53690@fledge.watson.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wednesday 07 June 2006 04:59, Robert Watson wrote: > > On Wed, 7 Jun 2006, Julian Elischer wrote: > > >> I'd like to clarify Alex's point a bit: he wants to know his work is > >> acceptable by the project and could be merged. It's obvious it's almost > >> impossible to maintain that outside of the tree. > >> > > I'd like to see him merge his project with Marco's . If so then I'd be more > > than happy to see this stuff come in once it reaches a certain level of > > maturity. > > > > Marco and I have been going over some possible macros that could be used to > > help with a lot of this and if the macros were used then some of the changes > > could come in quite early as they would compile out to NOPs for anyone not > > using the changes. ( and provide an easy target for removal if it eventually > > doesn't complete). > > FYI, Marko was at the FreeBSD developer summit at BSDCan, and has expressed > the intent of updating his patches to 6.x/HEAD, so I think there's definitely > room for collaboration here. What did you think about Alex's idea of a 'prison0' to for all "non-jailed" processes so that lots of things can move into 'struct prison' and not require as much special casing (though then there would be a different set of special cases I guess as prison0 would be the only prison that could create child prisons, etc.?) -- John Baldwin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200606070819.04301.jhb>