Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2012 08:00:46 -0700 From: perryh@pluto.rain.com To: jameschen@juniper.net, fbsd8@a1poweruser.com Cc: questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Questions about Jail Message-ID: <4f7c621e.tnQwV40ucBoiDtJs%perryh@pluto.rain.com> In-Reply-To: <4F7B19CE.80401@a1poweruser.com> References: <079BB83C1486C245B64B055CF016336A02612843@emailhk3.jnpr.net> <4F7B19CE.80401@a1poweruser.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Fbsd8 <fbsd8@a1poweruser.com> wrote: > In most cases your jail environment will function ok as long as > its the same base release level. Example, host=8.0 jail1=8.1 and > jail2=8.2 IIUC, a better example would be host=8.2, jail1=8.1 and jail2=8.0. A point release is not supposed to make any incompatible changes to the kernel ABI, but it might add new interfaces not present in the older kernel. > But host=8.2 and jail1=9.0 will have unknown reliability. I would say it is only an accident if (jail major > kernel major) works, because the KABI will likely have changed between N.x and (N+1).x. However, host=9.0, jail1=8.x should work if the host kernel includes the COMPAT_FREEBSD8 option. > Technically there is no checks stopping someone from doing this > and from the outside all will look correct, but it will fail and > you may lose both the host and jail. You may indeed lose the jail, but if _anything_ done in the jail is able to corrupt the host there is by definition a bug in the host's jail support.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4f7c621e.tnQwV40ucBoiDtJs%perryh>