Quoting Joshua Hudson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > Why would you want a virtual network device implementation? The whole
So that a jailed process can use the net but can't use your network address (intercept ssh, imap/stunnel, etc). > I do like the idea of patching in through LSM, however not everything > can be done there. > In particular, I could escape from the jail as implemented there by a > classic chroot() > trick. As Alan Cox had noted, you can escape with the help of an outside process, but the classic chroot(TEMPDIR);chdir(..);...;chroot(.) did not work against either the namespace-based or certainly not the older (inode_permission-based) implementation. But in the end vserver with read-only bind mounts seems a better way to go imo. -serge - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
