new jail(8) ignoring devfs_ruleset?

[Jamie Gritton]

On 02/18/13 09:29, Mateusz Guzik wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 09:26:42AM -0700, Jamie Gritton wrote:
>> On 02/18/13 01:54, Harald Schmalzbauer wrote:
>>>   schrieb Jamie Gritton am 16.02.2013 00:40 (localtime):
>>>> On 02/15/13 09:27, Harald Schmalzbauer wrote:
>>>>>    Hello,
>>>>>
>>>>> like already posted, on 9.1-R, I highly appreciate the new jail(8) and
>>>>> jail.conf capabilities. Thanks for that extension!
>>>>>
>>>>> Accidentally I saw that "devfs_ruleset" seems to be ignored.
>>>>> If I list /dev/ I see all the hosts disk devices etc.
>>>>> I set "devfs_ruleset = 4;" and "enforce_statfs = 1;" in jail.conf.
>>>>>     Inside the jail,
>>>>> sysctl security.jail.devfs_ruleset returnes "1".
>>>>> But like mentioned, I can access all devices...
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for any help,
>>>>>
>>>>> -Harry
>>>>
>>>> devfs_ruleset is only used along with mount.devfs - do you also have
>>>> that set in jail.conf?
>>>
>>> Thanks for your response.
>>>
>>> Yes, I have mount.devfs; set.
>>> Otherwise I wouldn't have any device inside my jail. Verified - and like
>>> intended, right?
>>> Another notable discrepancy: The man page tells that devfs_rulset is "4"
>>> by default.
>>> But when I don't set devfs_rulset in jail.conf at all, inside the jail,
>>> 'sysctl security.jail.devfs_ruleset': 0
>>> When set, like mentioned above, it returns the corresponding value, but
>>> it doesn't have any effect.
>>> How gets devfs_rulset handled? Does jail(8) do the whole job? I'd like
>>> to help finding the source, but have missed the whole new jail evolution...
>>> Inside my jails, I don't have a fstab, outside I have them defined and
>>> enabled with "mount" - and noticed the non-reverted umounting.
>>
>> I found the problem - I noticed you mentioned 9.1-R, and took a look at
>> devfs(5). On CURRENT, there's a mount option "ruleset", that isn't there
>> on 9.
>>
>> So I'll have to get around it by running devfs(8) after the mount. I'll
>> work on a patch for that.
>>
>
> Why not MFC support for that mount option instead?

I wasn't quite right about it not being in 9.1. I was looking at my 9.0
desktop, and it's not there. But it was in fact MFCd into 9.1. So I'm
back to saying as long as you use the devfs_ruleset parameter, your
jailed /dev should be correct.

- Jamie