From nobody Fri Dec 02 10:03:01 2022 X-Original-To: freebsd-current@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4NNpRF302Rz4hxjm for ; Fri, 2 Dec 2022 10:03:05 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from olivier.freebsd@free.fr) Received: from smtp6-g21.free.fr (smtp6-g21.free.fr [IPv6:2a01:e0c:1:1599::15]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4NNpRD6T91z480X for ; Fri, 2 Dec 2022 10:03:04 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from olivier.freebsd@free.fr) Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=pass header.d=free.fr header.s=smtp-20201208 header.b=EigQ3UIB; spf=pass (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of olivier.freebsd@free.fr designates 2a01:e0c:1:1599::15 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=olivier.freebsd@free.fr; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=free.fr Received: from ravel.localnet (unknown [109.210.33.132]) (Authenticated sender: olivier.freebsd@free.fr) by smtp6-g21.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 51FD078039B; Fri, 2 Dec 2022 11:03:02 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=free.fr; s=smtp-20201208; t=1669975383; bh=sQRv3VeEOWc0uD4lu98Dul6Svbx6D14v20PaM6GAcuc=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=EigQ3UIBjS878BjaxZOgtENzs6CotgnAvmiHlp94uLrPh1Pcx3VdWnPSF24zCvH/6 7J72tE4UXbxEGfHTY8oJ5lRO3jsn8Y1aeoB9woD0hAmoaxuzi48ZMIZkljjZYZdeMU 9+1gzXGFO3g6ApKDJngFDPQGvk/B6MZzNPF2ZRmTOKMUEt0lSR8meQWP7I5xunISOp ByM1ja25y6qRnQHvzbhOvYV6dD+T/voHB9AZ8IXlpVxr0k72z6wcgevFK4tAN6xVLm NiLvpTKh49e94SLhhOj8Thn+knOVytJ6tWYgVDBxi75RXV2oTAl5K3xwk+kikTe64q 1RE0FmOvNBg1w== From: Olivier Certner To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Rick Macklem Subject: Re: RFC: nfsd in a vnet jail Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2022 11:03:01 +0100 Message-ID: <1955021.aDjkhKmpDe@ravel> In-Reply-To: References: <20221201110137.08b2b68c@zeta.dino.sk> List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-current List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-freebsd-current@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-2.91 / 15.00]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.00)[-1.000]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.91)[-0.905]; DMARC_POLICY_ALLOW(-0.50)[free.fr,none]; CTE_CASE(0.50)[]; MID_RHS_NOT_FQDN(0.50)[]; R_DKIM_ALLOW(-0.20)[free.fr:s=smtp-20201208]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+ip6:2a01:e0c:1:1599::15:c]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; TAGGED_RCPT(0.00)[]; MLMMJ_DEST(0.00)[freebsd-current@freebsd.org]; RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE(0.00)[2a01:e0c:1:1599::15:from]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; FREEMAIL_ENVFROM(0.00)[free.fr]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; DKIM_TRACE(0.00)[free.fr:+]; FREEMAIL_FROM(0.00)[free.fr]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; DWL_DNSWL_NONE(0.00)[free.fr:dkim]; RCPT_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; FREEMAIL_TO(0.00)[freebsd.org,gmail.com]; ASN(0.00)[asn:12322, ipnet:2a01:e00::/26, country:FR]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[] X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4NNpRD6T91z480X X-Spamd-Bar: -- X-ThisMailContainsUnwantedMimeParts: N Hi, > (snip) > > #2 - Require separate file systems and run mountd inside the jail(s). > > I think that allowing both alternatives would be too confusing > and it seems that most want mountd to run within the jail(s). > As such, unless others prefer #1, I think #2 is the way to go. Just to be sure I've understood correctly: You plan to make a separate filesystem as jail's root a requirement but only in the case of using mountd(8) in the jail? Or in general? While I think doing so in the NFSv4/mountd case is indeed a good idea, I don't think enforcing it in general is. It would generally degrade the multiple jails management experience on UFS (in the absence of a volume manager), where all jails have roots in the same filesystem (to avoid allocating/deallocating space as jails come and go or must be resized). Regards. -- Olivier Certner