Ian C. Blenke wrote:
> On Tuesday 20 May 2003 05:24, Greg Schmidt wrote:
>
>><snip me>
>
>><snip Ian>
>
> , but there have been recent snort
> exploits that make me think that *all* services should be sandboxed in a UML
> image to keep things truely safe on the all too critical UML host.
>
I'm liking that idea. We all know there is no such thing as "truely safe".
> Once you realize that you can restore a UML image fairly painlessly
> (particularly with a COW backing store),
What's this COW stuff? I found copy on write. I found uml_moo. It
sounds like you keep a shared read-only filesystem in one place and a
delta in another. Somehow a virtual filesystem keeps them straight?
(Yeah, that's a question mark.)
I read some HOW_TOs and if I read them a time or two more I might be
able to pull it off. In the spirit of another thread that seems to be
active lately, I guess what I'm missing is the WHY_TO.
More importantly, what's this talk about a painless restore?
Thanks,
Greg
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 20:10:59 EDT