| 1 |
On Thursday 30 September 2004 18:38, Stephen P. Becker wrote: |
| 2 |
> > |
| 3 |
> > Simply implementing sandbox as a kernel module would have the same |
| 4 |
> > security effect as such a chroot. Then, libsandbox (or whatever it's |
| 5 |
> > called) could simply use the module if available and fallback to the |
| 6 |
> > normal way if it's not... |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> So in other words, breaking all installs that don't use kernel modules? |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
No, the idea is to fall back to the normal sandbox if the kernel one is not |
| 11 |
available. The only disadvantage of this approach instead of a chroot with |
| 12 |
overlay is that in such an environment DISTDIR would not be necessary |
| 13 |
anymore. Removing DISTDIR in some setups is dangerous though as it means that |
| 14 |
testing gets a lot more complicated and quality might degrade. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Paul |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
-- |
| 19 |
Paul de Vrieze |
| 20 |
Gentoo Developer |
| 21 |
Mail: pauldv@g.o |
| 22 |
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net |
Archives