4 ms·
If the Linux kernel does not implement chroot as described below, then it cannot claim to be POSIX-compliant. Going out of compliance will come at some cost.
by chasil 6y ago
If the Linux kernel does not implement chroot as described below, then it cannot claim to be POSIX-compliant.
Going out of compliance will come at some cost.
https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/7908799/xsh/chroot.html https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/7908799/xsh/chroot.htm...
- tinus_hn 6y agoI think Linux explicitly claims not to be POSIX compliant because you have to pay for that.
- chasil 6y agoThis is what the wiki says. I've never heard of Linux-FT, but I did remember that someone took the certification process all the way. Linux systems adhere to POSIX,[81] SUS,[82] LSB, ISO, and ANSI standards where possible, although to date only one Linux distribution has been POSIX.1 certified, Linux-FT.[83][84] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux Archive.org has the supporting documents. https://web.archive.org/web/20160404122450/http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/0131 https://web.archive.org/web/20160404122450/http://www.linuxj... "Unifix GmbH (Braunschweig, Germany) developed a Linux system that has been certified to conform to FIPS 151-2 (a superset of POSIX.1). This technology was available in Unifix' own distribution called Unifix Linux 2.0 and in Lasermoon's Linux-FT." https://web.archive.org/web/20111010111215/http://www.debian.org/doc/FAQ/ch-compat.en.html https://web.archive.org/web/20111010111215/http://www.debian...
- whizzter 6y agoNothing in that spec says anything about the process having the opurtunity to escalate privileges or escaping the chroot after invoking the call to chroot.