Date: Sun, 27 Apr 1997 12:53:06 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> To: eivind@nic.follonett.no (Eivind Eklund) Cc: joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de, hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: sysctl -A Message-ID: <199704271953.MAA09122@phaeton.artisoft.com> In-Reply-To: <199704271447.QAA08219@nic.follonett.no> from "Eivind Eklund" at Apr 27, 97 04:47:45 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> If the filesystem flags (immutable etc) is pulled along far enough into the > kernel, it might be possible to do this by adding a separate flag indicating > that the executable in question is allowed to do hardware access. > It would of course need to be unchangable on securelevel > 0, and require the > immutable flag for the executable. > > Also, it is quite a hack, and I don't think I'd consider the ugliness > worthwhile. However, if this _really_ is a priority, it might be an > option. Heh. And we would put a file containing this attribute data in a subdirectory of /etc/... Heh. You've invented SVR4 flags for "this binary can get a reserved port", etc.. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199704271953.MAA09122>