Hi, On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 03:46:00AM +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote: > olafbuddenha...@gmx.net, le Fri 17 Jun 2011 23:19:15 +0200, a écrit : > > On Fri, Jun 03, 2011 at 10:40:03AM +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote: > > > olafbuddenha...@gmx.net, le Thu 02 Jun 2011 04:13:34 +0200, a écrit :
> > > > Err... What's the use of sharing the pipe server between chroot and > > > > main system? > > > > > > So that named pipes can actually work. > > > > Why wouldn't they work if the chroot uses a separate pipe server? AIUI > > it will only prevent pipes *between* the two environments, but not > > within it... > > > > > /tmp and /var/run and things like that also need to be firmlinked. > > > Else the rendez-vous between pflocal and libc doesn't work. > > > > What rendez-vous? > > Honestly I don't remember all the details and don't want to dive into > it again, but be sure that there *is* an issue, else I wouldn't have > tinkered with this. It must be something like: the separate pipe server > is not chrooted, and thus looks for the rendez-vous (see pipe code, I'm > afraid I'm too lazy to work out the details again just to explain them) > in the non-chrooted filesystem. Hm, right... The well-known passive-translator-escapes-chroot problem. I even briefly considered this, but for some discarded it as a non-issue -- wrongly I guess. -antrik-
