In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you
write:
> I am all for removing -e, but I don't really like the idea of making
> it optional nor do I like the idea of trying to maintain the capability
> for the user's own processes - that simply makes the code even more
> complex then it already is. The danger is that the option exists in
> the first place.
I both do and do not want it to be removed.
The code _does not_ need to be more complex, as procfs already implements the
correct restrictions. (Simply dropping the SGID bit off of ps(1), and
teaching it to use procfs only, will do it; dropping the SGID bit, and having
it use /proc/<pid>/mem instead of /dev/kmem, will do the same thing. I
believe; I don't know ps well enough to figure this all out yet, but that was
certainly one of my goals when I wrote the bloody thing.)
P.S. You see that Reply-To: line in the header? It's there for a reason. If
you must override it, don't send it to both me and the list.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
