From: | Andreas Kohn <andreas.kohn@xxxxxxxxx> |
Date: | Mon, 20 Mar 2006 00:29:47 +0100 |
Hi, On Sun, 2006-03-19 at 23:43 +0100, Simon 'corecode' Schubert wrote: > joerg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > >>the attached patches make it a bit easier to setup jails (no fake /etc/fstab, > >>no additional network_interfaces="" in jails' /etc/rc.conf, etc) since some > >>services are not supposed to run inside jail. > > I never liked the nojail keyword. Anyway, I don't like the new sysctl > > either, since it is redundant. Try "kill -0 1" :-) > > I actually quite like the patch. And having a sysctl telling explicitly > if running in a jail or not seems a very sane idea. What does FreeBSD do? Exactly that sysctl exists on FreeBSD as well. And I also consider an explicit sysctl way better than some non-obvious[*] method to figure out the same. Regards, -- Andreas [*] The man page of kill doesn't mention "0" as a way to check if a process is jailed, and neither jail(2) nor jail(8) talk about it. And I don't think a user new to jails imagines that trying and failing to send a non-existing (cf. sys/signal.h, signal(3)) to init will tell him whether he is jailed or not. But I may be overlooking something obvious, of course :)
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part