On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 5:32 AM, Domagoj Stolfa <domagoj.sto...@gmail.com> wrote: > Yes, it would maybe make sense to do so. I am not too familiar with > capsicum(4), but glancing over it, it might be possible. If anything, it > would allow for code reuse from the OpenBSD ports and increased portability > in the future. Maybe the people who have worked with capsicum(4) or have > developed it could give some more insight on this. >
I don't see how it would be possible. Capsicum is all about file descriptors. When you call cap_enter(), you give up the ability to access global namespaces. For example, you can no longer open files (except using openat(2) for files in a subdirectory of a directory which is already opened). OTOH, pledge is all about sycalls. When you pledge, you give up the ability to use certain syscalls, regardless of what file descriptors they might involve. So for example, a program that uses pledge(2) to prohibit networking syscalls can't simply replace pledge(2) with cap_enter(2), because it may need to open files after pledging. -Alan _______________________________________________ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
