Or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Kernel

A Little Background

chrooting is a beautiful thing. The concept effectively works like this:

  1. Make a folder
  2. Throw software into it
  3. Invoke an executable inside of the folder while fooling it into believing that the root of the filesystem is the folder you just made
  4. Profit

Of course, it's a little more complicated than that, but functionally, it allows you to spawn processes in other root filesystems sharing the same kernel.

What's the point?

Off the top of my head:

And many other things, too, but those are the three things I see most.

What's the catch?

In low-functionality chroots, where filesystem-emplaced resources aren't needed (such as /dev, /proc, etc.), a chroot is a perfect solution; it isolates the program's reach to just that folder. This is a fairly major security benefit.

On the other hand, it still has access to memory, networking (sometimes), other processes (again, sometimes), and other resources which the kernel shares by default.

Even bigger problems arise when chrooting into entire OSes; you will have to mount (most frequently) /dev, /dev/pts, /proc, /sys, and occasionally /run. This discloses resources to the chroot that it frequently doesn't need access to.

Another issue is that quite a few OSes depend on an init command being run with PID 1. For example, services rarely even execute given that they know they're in a chroot (this is for the user's safety, of course). While PID 1 is still a init command, it's not the one they're expecting and they certainly don't have direct access to it.


Spend some time configuring or use other kinds of "jails", such as FreeBSD's jail, containers, or even systemd-nspawn, but be aware that all of these have their own set of caveats as well.

Of course, you could just boot straight into the OS.