On Tue, 2008-01-22 at 13:14 -0500, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 13:04:26 -0500
Simo Sorce <ssorce(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> It seem to me that SELinux can provide for the same (or better)
> "features" of chroot without actually requiring a chrooted
> environment. So shouldn't we simply provide targeted policies and not
> use chroot for known services ?
That's not the point of many chroot usages. Frequently chroots are
used to gain access to content from a different release or arch than
what you have installed. EG we use RHEL5 to create chroots of f9 and
build packages within that chroot using F9 content. Likewise we do a
pure i386 package set on x86_64 to accomplish our i386 build. These
types of usages cannot be easily replaced with an selinux policy.
I am sorry,
I was thinking only about the security usage of chroots.
I have been using chroots for "mock like" usage myself to release samba
packages for older Debian releases for many years, should have just been
thinking harder :-)
What Yakoov wrote in the other emails makes a lot of sense indeed.
Simo.
--
| Simo S Sorce |
| Sr.Soft.Eng. |
| Red Hat, Inc |
| New York, NY |