From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 26 Jun 2001 21:18:13 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 26 Jun 2001 21:17:53 -0400 Received: from gateway2.ensim.com ([65.164.64.250]:10249 "EHLO nasdaq.ms.ensim.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 26 Jun 2001 21:17:47 -0400 X-Mailer: exmh version 2.3 01/15/2001 with nmh-1.0 From: Paul Menage To: "Mohammad A. Haque" cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] User chroot cc: pmenage@ensim.com In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 26 Jun 2001 21:08:50 EDT." <3B393222.14273547@haque.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 18:24:07 -0700 Message-Id: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org >Paul Menage wrote: >> This could be regarded as the wrong way to solve such a problem, but >> this kind of bug seems to be occurring often enough on BugTraq that it >> might be useful if you don't have the resources to do a full security >> audit on your program (or if the source to some of your libraries >> isn't available). > >Why do this in the kernel when it's available in userspace? > >http://freshmeat.net/projects/rj/ > But only root can set this up, since you currently have to be root in order to chroot(). The (only) advantage of the user chroot() patch would be that users would be able to do the same thing without root intervention. Paul