Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 14:27:10 -0800 (PST) From: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> To: Sean Eric Fagan <sef@kithrup.com> Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: PATCH for testing Message-ID: <199911152227.OAA45627@apollo.backplane.com> References: <199911152213.OAA20176@kithrup.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
:I don't think this should go in at all.
:
:It increases the size of the proc structure (thereby affecting _all_
:processes) gratuitously. While I'm generally in favour of having the process
:arguments kept around, the "BSD way" has been to only examine them in user
:memory, despite that being unreliable and just annoying.
:
:The benefits are fairly minimal, and I don't believe justify the cost
:incurred.
If it weren't for 'setproctitle()' I would agree with you. But since
setproctitle() exists we have a serious mess on our hands. Personally I
would prefer to see it cleaned up as follows:
* place a copy of the initial arguments in the struct proc as well
as the uarea.
* have the sysctl that limits the buffer size within the struct proc
to something reasonable (e.g. 1K) but don't bother making 'ps'
fall back to the uarea. Allow a value of '0' indicating 'unlimited'
(i.e. really means ARGS_MAX).
* setproctitle() messes with the struct proc only
* ps, top, et all use the struct proc only
And, also, we need to get rid of the 'e' option to ps entirely. It's a
major security hole.
-Matt
Matthew Dillon
<dillon@backplane.com>
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199911152227.OAA45627>