From owner-freebsd-hackers Fri Jul 30 17:56:51 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from apollo.backplane.com (apollo.backplane.com [209.157.86.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7774214D65; Fri, 30 Jul 1999 17:56:50 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dillon@apollo.backplane.com) Received: (from dillon@localhost) by apollo.backplane.com (8.9.3/8.9.1) id RAA95155; Fri, 30 Jul 1999 17:55:15 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dillon) Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 17:55:15 -0700 (PDT) From: Matthew Dillon Message-Id: <199907310055.RAA95155@apollo.backplane.com> To: Warner Losh Cc: "Jordan K. Hubbard" , "Brian F. Feldman" , hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: So, back on the topic of enabling bpf in GENERIC... References: <9518.933378839@zippy.cdrom.com> <199907302357.RAA85254@harmony.village.org> Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG :In message <9518.933378839@zippy.cdrom.com> "Jordan K. Hubbard" writes: :: > There are no security levels > 3. I'd be happy with > 0. This is :: > consistant with the meaning of "raw devices". :: :: Would you be willing to make this change? : :Yes. I will make this change tomorrow unless there is significant :objections that cannot be resolved in the mean time. : :Warner It seems to me quite reasonable to prevent further opens of bpf once the secure level has been raised above zero. None of the devices using bpf appear to have a rebinding problem (e.g. as opposed to named running as non-root), so this would fit in well. -Matt Matthew Dillon To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message