From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jul 25 14:46:13 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A338A16A419; Wed, 25 Jul 2007 14:46:13 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bsam@ipt.ru) Received: from mail.ipt.ru (mail.ipt.ru [194.62.233.102]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FDC813C45A; Wed, 25 Jul 2007 14:46:13 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bsam@ipt.ru) Received: from stat.sem.ipt.ru ([192.168.12.1] helo=ipt.ru) by mail.ipt.ru with esmtp (Exim 4.62 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1IDi7z-000NNG-0P; Wed, 25 Jul 2007 18:46:15 +0400 Received: from bsam by ipt.ru with local (Exim 4.63 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1IDi86-0009GJ-L2; Wed, 25 Jul 2007 18:46:22 +0400 To: Pawel Jakub Dawidek References: <97732929@srv.sem.ipt.ru> <20070723133333.GF5456@garage.freebsd.pl> <78011660@srv.sem.ipt.ru> <20070724144549.GA12473@garage.freebsd.pl> From: Boris Samorodov Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 18:46:22 +0400 In-Reply-To: <20070724144549.GA12473@garage.freebsd.pl> (Pawel Jakub Dawidek's message of "Tue\, 24 Jul 2007 16\:45\:49 +0200") Message-ID: <08401633@srv.sem.ipt.ru> User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.99 (berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: mount_nullfs inside a jail X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 14:46:13 -0000 On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 16:45:49 +0200 Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote: > On Tue, Jul 24, 2007 at 06:03:47PM +0400, Boris Samorodov wrote: > > On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 15:33:33 +0200 Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote: > > > As you can see, nullfs doesn't have 'jail' flag. The only jail-friendly > > > file system currently is ZFS. Nullfs is a good candidate for a > > > jail-friendly file system, but is not marked as such yet. > > > > Does somebody know if only a flag is missing or not? > You may try changing the line in /sys/fs/nullfs/null_vfsops.c from: > VFS_SET(null_vfsops, nullfs, VFCF_LOOPBACK); > to: > VFS_SET(null_vfsops, nullfs, VFCF_LOOPBACK | VFCF_JAIL); This didn't help: ----- btest# sysctl security.jail security.jail.jailed: 1 security.jail.mount_allowed: 1 security.jail.chflags_allowed: 1 security.jail.allow_raw_sockets: 0 security.jail.enforce_statfs: 2 security.jail.sysvipc_allowed: 1 security.jail.socket_unixiproute_only: 1 security.jail.set_hostname_allowed: 1 btest# lsvfs Filesystem Refs Flags -------------------------------- ----- --------------- ufs 6 nfs 0 network procfs 0 synthetic devfs 3 synthetic ntfs 0 msdosfs 0 nfs4 0 network nullfs 1 loopback, jail cd9660 0 read-only btest# df Filesystem 1K-blocks Used Avail Capacity Mounted on /dev/da0s1d 945804208 22136782 848003090 3% / btest# mount /usr/ports/distfiles /mnt mount: /usr/ports/distfiles : Operation not permitted ----- Thanks for the suggestion though. > but I don't think anyone did any security analysis of this yet. WBR -- Boris Samorodov (bsam) Research Engineer, http://www.ipt.ru Telephone & Internet SP FreeBSD committer, http://www.FreeBSD.org The Power To Serve