On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 9:22 PM, Ted Unangst <ted.unan...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 2:52 PM, Jonathan Thornburg > <jth...@astro.indiana.edu> wrote: >> In message <http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=125859873724898&w=1>, >> Ted Unangst <ted.unangst () gmail ! com> wrote >> [[about running firefox as root]] >>> It's the easiest way to nice it to -10... > > I'm really surprised at the number of people who took this statement > seriously. I know I left out the sarcasm tags, but I figured it would > be pretty obvious. oops.
I read below and found it hilarious. I *think* he was kidding too. -B >> >> I have two reactions to this. First, the unimportant one: >> Nice it to a negative number! Way too many sites confuse it enough >> to trigger infinite or near-infinite loops, so I keep it niced to a >> *positive* number (currently +6, though I've used +10 in the past)... >> >> Now the important one: To me, the obvious way to nice firefox (or >> anything else with a /bin/sh startup script) to -10 is to use a setuid-root >> perl script to either renice itself before invoking the usual firefox >> startup script, or to renice the firefox binary after it starts running. >> I'm sure Ted thought of this... so I'm wondering why he rejected this? >> In particular, assuming the programmer RTFM perlsec, is there a security >> risk for setuid-root perl scripts that I've missed? >> >> ciao, >> >> -- >> -- "Jonathan Thornburg [remove -animal to reply]" > <jth...@astro.indiana-zebra.edu> >> Dept of Astronomy, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana, USA >> "C++ is to programming as sex is to reproduction. Better ways might >> technically exist but they're not nearly as much fun." -- Nikolai Irgens
