Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1999 12:35:53 -0500 From: Jacques Vidrine <n@nectar.com> To: des@flood.ping.uio.no Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: kern.securelevel and X Message-ID: <19991019173553.D8DCFC008@gw.nectar.com> In-Reply-To: <xzp67043a3n.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no> References: <xzp90503esj.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no> <19991018152147.609F71DA3@bone.nectar.com> <xzp67043a3n.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 18 Oct 1999 18:30:20 +0200, Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@flood.ping.uio.no> wrote: > Why are you so obsessed with jail(2)? There is no reason for this to > be jail(2)-specific. As I told you on IRC: > > 03:21 #bsdcode Nectar> DES: securelevel == systemwide, jail == process based > 03:22 #bsdcode ---------> nectar: no, you're not ambitious enough 8) I suppose that is fair: you misunderstood my remark, and I didn't get yours (I thought you were being sarcastic). What I was trying to indicate is that one facet of jail is analogous to securelevel (both limit the operations available to even the superuser). Both securelevel and that particular facet of jail should, IMHO, share a common implementation. Just so you don't accuse me of obsessing again :-) let me explain further. The jail system call as it exists in -CURRENT actually does three different things: it calls chroot, it restricts TCP/IP IPC, and it restricts certain operations. These three things don't necessarily belong together. It is the last aspect that I am comparing to securelevel, and that I've been talking about. Excuse me for using an existing system call as a reference point :-P I pretty much agree with the rest of your message. Off to see Markm talk about FreeBSD security. :-) Later, Jacques Vidrine / n@nectar.com / nectar@FreeBSD.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19991019173553.D8DCFC008>