Subject: Re: LD_CHROOT idea
To: Luke Mewburn <lukem@wasabisystems.com>
From: Simon J. Gerraty <sjg@quick.com.au>
List: tech-security
Date: 04/10/2001 01:22:44
>The idea is to add a few more environment variables to ld.so;
> LD_CHROOT directory to chdir(2) then chroot(2) to
> LD_CHROOT_UID uid to run as (optional)
> LD_CHROOT_GID gid to run as (optional)
> LD_CHROOT_GIDS comma separated list of secondary gids (optional)
Sounds reasonable. Do we support late binding? I know I had problems
running smtpd chrooted on solaris until I added some code to force it
to do a gethostby*() before calling chroot().
If the answer is yes, should LD_CHROOT force bind now semantics?
>If LD_CHROOT is set and the process isn't setuid or setgid, then
Yep, sounds ok. Allowing LD_CHROOT for setuid progs could open
a can of worms - that you don't get with chroot(8).
--sjg