| 1 |
On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 02:05:57 +0700 |
| 2 |
Pandu Poluan <pandu@××××××.info> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
> Not really explaining waltdnes' interesting layout, but using |
| 6 |
> bindmount (instead of symlinks) ensures that when a program tries to |
| 7 |
> find a relative directory from a path, it will not attempt to do so |
| 8 |
> from the symlink's target. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
[snip] |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
> Ta da! The ephemeral directories can now just fight among |
| 13 |
themselves, |
| 14 |
> and the important directories can be backed up in one fell swoop (via |
| 15 |
> /mnt/.persistents)? |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> Thoughts are welcome, of course :) |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> Rgds, |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
That's an interesting solution but I still don't understand the problem |
| 22 |
it solves. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
What actual real-world threat does this counter? Not a theoretical |
| 25 |
threat, an actual real one, and why do you think you need to stop |
| 26 |
software using relative paths? |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Not to rain on your parade, but it just sounds a lot like chrooting |
| 29 |
named - a huge amount of work, a real PITA for the maintainer, lots and |
| 30 |
lots of warm fuzzies for PHBs, but no real actual benefit overall. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
Alan McKinnnon |
| 34 |
alan.mckinnon@×××××.com |
Archives