From owner-freebsd-jail@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Feb 18 16:26:51 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: jail@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [8.8.178.115]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20180CE1; Mon, 18 Feb 2013 16:26:51 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jamie@FreeBSD.org) Received: from m2.gritton.org (gritton.org [199.192.164.235]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E746483C; Mon, 18 Feb 2013 16:26:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from glorfindel.gritton.org (c-174-52-130-157.hsd1.ut.comcast.net [174.52.130.157]) (authenticated bits=0) by m2.gritton.org (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r1IGQhn2087146; Mon, 18 Feb 2013 09:26:44 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from jamie@FreeBSD.org) Message-ID: <51225642.2010501@FreeBSD.org> Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 09:26:42 -0700 From: Jamie Gritton User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD amd64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.24) Gecko/20120129 Thunderbird/3.1.16 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Harald Schmalzbauer Subject: Re: new jail(8) ignoring devfs_ruleset? References: <511E61F5.1000805@omnilan.de> <511EC759.4060704@FreeBSD.org> <5121EC52.5040502@omnilan.de> In-Reply-To: <5121EC52.5040502@omnilan.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-jail , freebsd-stable X-BeenThere: freebsd-jail@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion about FreeBSD jail\(8\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 16:26:51 -0000 On 02/18/13 01:54, Harald Schmalzbauer wrote: > schrieb Jamie Gritton am 16.02.2013 00:40 (localtime): >> On 02/15/13 09:27, Harald Schmalzbauer wrote: >>> Hello, >>> >>> like already posted, on 9.1-R, I highly appreciate the new jail(8) and >>> jail.conf capabilities. Thanks for that extension! >>> >>> Accidentally I saw that "devfs_ruleset" seems to be ignored. >>> If I list /dev/ I see all the hosts disk devices etc. >>> I set "devfs_ruleset = 4;" and "enforce_statfs = 1;" in jail.conf. >>> Inside the jail, >>> sysctl security.jail.devfs_ruleset returnes "1". >>> But like mentioned, I can access all devices... >>> >>> Thanks for any help, >>> >>> -Harry >> >> devfs_ruleset is only used along with mount.devfs - do you also have >> that set in jail.conf? > > Thanks for your response. > > Yes, I have mount.devfs; set. > Otherwise I wouldn't have any device inside my jail. Verified - and like > intended, right? > Another notable discrepancy: The man page tells that devfs_rulset is "4" > by default. > But when I don't set devfs_rulset in jail.conf at all, inside the jail, > 'sysctl security.jail.devfs_ruleset': 0 > When set, like mentioned above, it returns the corresponding value, but > it doesn't have any effect. > How gets devfs_rulset handled? Does jail(8) do the whole job? I'd like > to help finding the source, but have missed the whole new jail evolution... > Inside my jails, I don't have a fstab, outside I have them defined and > enabled with "mount" - and noticed the non-reverted umounting. I found the problem - I noticed you mentioned 9.1-R, and took a look at devfs(5). On CURRENT, there's a mount option "ruleset", that isn't there on 9. So I'll have to get around it by running devfs(8) after the mount. I'll work on a patch for that. - Jamie