From: Michael R. <mr...@bl...> - 2006-12-09 00:43:33
|
Jason Stone writes: > >>I seem to remember fess or paulie asking me about how to make a safe > >>setuid chroot wrapper. did that ever happen? > > > >no we didn't get anywhere with that. That was an attempt to further > >reduce dependancies on the base system, another wigwam deficiency is > >that the boundry between wigwam and the base system is blurry to say the > >least. > > yes, this is, for my money, the biggest flaw in wigwam. it's all well and > good to say that wigwam frees you from local system dependencies, but it's > way too easy to start relying on system libraries and not even realizing > it - this has bitten me several times. chrooting is the only way to be > sure. plus, it buys you paranoia points. We started down the chroot path at Snap last year, but there were several issues that didn't seem to have a clean solution. For instance, LOCAL_VAR...ideally you could have several versioned chroot playpens side by side, and you could start any one of them using the same LOCAL_VAR so that persistent data (e.g. mysql databases) is saved. We couldn't figure out a way to do that without hard-linking directories or having serving the directory via NFS over localhost so it can be mounted in several places (if that's even kosher). Did anyone else ever think of a better way to do this? Mike P.S. I'd say the biggest flaw in Wigwam 3 is that 'packagectl update-packages' doesn't rebuild packages when their dependencies are upgraded (whereas 'packagectl upgrade PACKAGE' does). But that should be fixable. :) |