jail extensions

[John Baldwin]

On Wednesday 07 June 2006 04:59, Robert Watson wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 7 Jun 2006, Julian Elischer wrote:
> 
> >> I'd like to clarify Alex's point a bit: he wants to know his work is 
> >> acceptable by the project and could be merged.  It's obvious it's almost 
> >> impossible to maintain that outside of the tree.
> >> 
> > I'd like to see him merge his project with Marco's . If so then I'd be 
more 
> > than happy to see this stuff come in once it reaches a certain level of 
> > maturity.
> >
> > Marco and I have been going over some possible macros that could be used 
to 
> > help with a lot of this and if the macros were used then some of the 
changes 
> > could come in quite early as they would compile out to NOPs for anyone not 
> > using the changes. ( and provide an easy target for removal if it 
eventually 
> > doesn't complete).
> 
> FYI, Marko was at the FreeBSD developer summit at BSDCan, and has expressed 
> the intent of updating his patches to 6.x/HEAD, so I think there's 
definitely 
> room for collaboration here.

What did you think about Alex's idea of a 'prison0' to for all "non-jailed" 
processes so that lots of things can move into 'struct prison' and not 
require as much special casing (though then there would be a different set of 
special cases I guess as prison0 would be the only prison that could create 
child prisons, etc.?)

-- 
John Baldwin