vitalyb wrote:
>
>> The description is incorrect in the sense that it implies it only
>> works one way, but in fact it appears to work both ways, ie the
>> parent can't see the chrooted process either (or perhaps this is a bug?)
>
> AFAIU, since vserver is a kind of chroot itself when above is 'y'
> it appears to be two different chroots - so they can not see each
> other.
>
Agreed - I guess the point is that I was expecting chroots to be
recusive downwards - whereas the statement is correct if we assume that
chroots are a flat separate space. It would be useful for them to be
enclosures downwards with the parent always able to control child, but
not vice versa, but hey
Thanks again
Ed W
Received on Wed May 14 08:52:48 2008