Hi Padraig,
On 10/16/2014 02:05 AM, Pádraig Brady wrote:
From d520929586ee2063d48359aaaef8f28807604cae Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: =?UTF-8?q?P=C3=A1draig=20Brady?=p...@draigbrady.com
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2014 18:08:42 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] chroot: call chroot() unconditionally to handle bind
On 10/16/2014 08:38 AM, Bernhard Voelker wrote:
Hi Padraig,
On 10/16/2014 02:05 AM, Pádraig Brady wrote:
From d520929586ee2063d48359aaaef8f28807604cae Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: =?UTF-8?q?P=C3=A1draig=20Brady?=p...@draigbrady.com
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2014 18:08:42 +0100
Subject: [PATCH]
On 10/16/2014 12:02 PM, Pádraig Brady wrote:
I don't have a strong preference either but would be (60:40) the other way.
In my mind they comes under the it's better to ask forgiveness than
permission idea.
I.E. it's better to invoke lower layer logic where possible, rather than
adding higher
On 10/15/2014 10:40 AM, Rogier wrote:
Hi,
Since a few months, it seems that chroot has started avoiding the
chroot call if it can be determined to be idempotent.
It looks like the new check is based on inode comparison - if the
inode is the same, the chroot() call is considered
On 10/15/2014 07:17 PM, Pádraig Brady wrote:
I agree with your analysis and that we should revert
to the previous behavior here, which is done in
the attached patch.
Hi Padraig,
I also agree that chroot(1) should chroot(2) in such a case, but wouldn't
be the obvious fix to STREQ() the
On 10/15/2014 10:55 PM, Bernhard Voelker wrote:
On 10/15/2014 07:17 PM, Pádraig Brady wrote:
I agree with your analysis and that we should revert
to the previous behavior here, which is done in
the attached patch.
Hi Padraig,
I also agree that chroot(1) should chroot(2) in such a case,
On 10/16/2014 12:14 AM, Pádraig Brady wrote:
On 10/15/2014 10:55 PM, Bernhard Voelker wrote:
On 10/15/2014 07:17 PM, Pádraig Brady wrote:
I agree with your analysis and that we should revert
to the previous behavior here, which is done in
the attached patch.
Hi Padraig,
I also agree that
