Date: Sat, 09 Oct 1999 10:02:31 -0500 From: Jacques Vidrine <n@nectar.com> To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: merging current's jail functionality to stable Message-ID: <19991009100231S.nectar@nectar.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hello everyone, I have backported Poul-Henning Kamp's jail functionality to 3.3-STABLE (see http://www.nectar.com/freebsd/jail.html for the patches, man pages, and a short description of jail) at the request of several users. I intend to commit these to -STABLE in the near future, but PHK brought up a concern. These patches change the interface of suser(9). All uses of suser in the source tree have been updated, but 3rd-party KLDs, at least, would be broken by this change. I don't use any 3rd-part KLDs. I'd like to hear from folks who do. As I see it, there are these options: = Damn the binary compatibility. Go ahead and commit it. Inform any known vendors about the change and encourage them to make the trivial updates needed. = Wrap these changes with ``options JAIL''. There are over 130 files that would need ``#ifdef JAIL'' as it is. This could be reduced, but any way you slice it, a lot of pollutant would have to be introduced. = Don't commit it, it is too much trouble. = Use magic on the 3rd-party KLDs so that calls of suser are folded to suser_xxx. This can't be perfect, because we'll lose the accounting info parameter, but it might be better than breaking the binary. This latter option is very intriguing to me. I currently lack clue about KLDs however. I'll look at them this weekend. Any feedback would be welcome! Jacques Vidrine / n@nectar.com / nectar@FreeBSD.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19991009100231S.nectar>