On Fri, 02 Dec 2022 11:03:01 +0100 Olivier Certner <olivier.free...@free.fr> wrote:
> Hi, > > > (snip) > > > > #2 - Require separate file systems and run mountd inside the > > jail(s). > > > > I think that allowing both alternatives would be too confusing > > and it seems that most want mountd to run within the jail(s). > > As such, unless others prefer #1, I think #2 is the way to go. > > Just to be sure I've understood correctly: You plan to make a > separate filesystem as jail's root a requirement but only in the case > of using mountd(8) in the jail? Or in general? > > While I think doing so in the NFSv4/mountd case is indeed a good > idea, I don't think enforcing it in general is. It would generally > degrade the multiple jails management experience on UFS (in the > absence of a volume manager), where all jails have roots in the same > filesystem (to avoid allocating/deallocating space as jails come and > go or must be resized). > Exactly my thoughts. If forced generally, it would mean jails are no longer usable, effectively, for UFS based devices. Or, possibly, 'entry costs' for using jails would be much higher and thus less used. In my eyes, they will be no longer lightweight virtualisation tool, main jail selling point for me. Regards, Milan
