From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1RUPW6-0004Jp-6n for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sat, 26 Nov 2011 21:10:34 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id F0C7A21C1CA; Sat, 26 Nov 2011 21:10:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ww0-f41.google.com (mail-ww0-f41.google.com [74.125.82.41]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A8D621C0D4 for ; Sat, 26 Nov 2011 21:07:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wwf22 with SMTP id 22so4504403wwf.4 for ; Sat, 26 Nov 2011 13:07:59 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:subject:message-id:in-reply-to:references:organization :x-mailer:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=gavnQZWkfkDEm9srPEp04WjJuHdezCg8CbO+7oh6YVg=; b=XLaRla00o5WSkKhYdGzGhN3AhYuZML8cZoeDsewWMEK8YONdJE9EDa6ZA8BZdYHTPS 1t22kQpdFGM52l1U1XvVDEq50DJs+j3pgwN2Y8XQQrUDmtjXG4MrLFvTLllgrP13gitt ZNadpiW/LEHtjhkZPrtJNMG8qVPXY+FKoLB9s= Received: by 10.180.90.148 with SMTP id bw20mr46883481wib.33.1322341679408; Sat, 26 Nov 2011 13:07:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from rohan.example.com ([196.215.144.97]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id et20sm32758508wbb.15.2011.11.26.13.07.57 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sat, 26 Nov 2011 13:07:58 -0800 (PST) Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2011 23:07:52 +0200 From: Alan McKinnon To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Partitioning strategy...? Message-ID: <20111126230752.7e74df8d@rohan.example.com> In-Reply-To: References: <20111125200801.GC15033@waltdnes.org> <201111261822.52744.michaelkintzios@gmail.com> Organization: Internet Solutions X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.8 (GTK+ 2.24.4; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 8d9917a5-cc24-43c2-b385-a925c4af1672 X-Archives-Hash: 728d3570e9e1abe749fc45af4956f8d7 On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 02:05:57 +0700 Pandu Poluan wrote: > Not really explaining waltdnes' interesting layout, but using > bindmount (instead of symlinks) ensures that when a program tries to > find a relative directory from a path, it will not attempt to do so > from the symlink's target. [snip] > Ta da! The ephemeral directories can now just fight among themselves, > and the important directories can be backed up in one fell swoop (via > /mnt/.persistents)? > > Thoughts are welcome, of course :) > > Rgds, That's an interesting solution but I still don't understand the problem it solves. What actual real-world threat does this counter? Not a theoretical threat, an actual real one, and why do you think you need to stop software using relative paths? Not to rain on your parade, but it just sounds a lot like chrooting named - a huge amount of work, a real PITA for the maintainer, lots and lots of warm fuzzies for PHBs, but no real actual benefit overall. -- Alan McKinnnon alan.mckinnon@gmail.com