From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 27 Jun 2001 11:39:40 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 27 Jun 2001 11:39:30 -0400 Received: from freerunner-o.cendio.se ([193.180.23.130]:27893 "EHLO mail.cendio.se") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 27 Jun 2001 11:39:14 -0400 To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] User chroot In-Reply-To: <20010627014534.B2654@ondska> <9hb6rq$49j$1@cesium.transmeta.com> From: Marcus Sundberg Date: 27 Jun 2001 17:39:12 +0200 In-Reply-To: hpa@zytor.com's message of "26 Jun 2001 16:46:02 -0700" Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.0803 (Gnus v5.8.3) Emacs/20.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org hpa@zytor.com ("H. Peter Anvin") writes: > Followup to: <20010627014534.B2654@ondska> > By author: Jorgen Cederlof > In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel > > If we only allow user chroots for processes that have never been > > chrooted before, and if the suid/sgid bits won't have any effect under > > the new root, it should be perfectly safe to allow any user to chroot. > > Safe, perhaps, but also completely useless: there is no way the user > can set up a functional environment inside the chroot. Huh? Why wouldn't you be able to set up a functional environment? I can think of quite a lot of things you can do without device nodes or /proc ... Or are you referring to something else? //Marcus -- ---------------------------------+--------------------------------- Marcus Sundberg | Phone: +46 707 452062 Embedded Systems Consultant | Email: marcus@cendio.se Cendio Systems AB | http://www.cendio.com