From owner-freebsd-hackers  Fri Jul 30 16:46: 9 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Received: from cygnus.rush.net (cygnus.rush.net [209.45.245.133])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 06B9614DF8; Fri, 30 Jul 1999 16:45:56 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from bright@rush.net)
Received: from localhost (bright@localhost)
	by cygnus.rush.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id TAA21332;
	Fri, 30 Jul 1999 19:44:55 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 19:44:54 -0400 (EDT)
From: Alfred Perlstein <bright@rush.net>
To: Warner Losh <imp@village.org>
Cc: "Brian F. Feldman" <green@FreeBSD.ORG>,
	"Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@zippy.cdrom.com>, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: So, back on the topic of enabling bpf in GENERIC... 
In-Reply-To: <199907302342.RAA85088@harmony.village.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.96.990730194407.20420V-100000@cygnus.rush.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

On Fri, 30 Jul 1999, Warner Losh wrote:

> In message <Pine.BSF.4.10.9907301619280.6951-100000@janus.syracuse.net> "Brian F. Feldman" writes:
> : And how about having
> : 	if (securelevel > 3)
> : 		return (EPERM);
> : in bpf_open()?
> 
> There are no security levels > 3.  I'd be happy with > 0.  This is
> consistant with the meaning of "raw devices".

What about the one-way sysctls that have been suggested?

-Alfred



To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message