From owner-cvs-all Fri Apr 19 9:41:35 2002 Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from elvis.mu.org (elvis.mu.org [192.203.228.196]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC6D337B417; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 09:41:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: by elvis.mu.org (Postfix, from userid 1192) id 82667AE147; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 09:41:31 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 09:41:31 -0700 From: Alfred Perlstein To: Robert Watson Cc: Garrett Wollman , "M. Warner Losh" , cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/kern kern_descrip.c kern_exec.c src/sys/sys filedesc.h Message-ID: <20020419164131.GG38320@elvis.mu.org> References: <200204190420.g3J4KMC69617@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.27i Sender: owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG * Robert Watson [020419 07:41] wrote: > > The policy decision regarding whether a program is "privileged" still has > to be made in the kernel, regardless of whether the fd problem is > addressed in kernel or user space. We discussed the "don't return 0 1 and > 2" fd's, but apparently many programs specifically rely on 0 1 and 2 being > returned sequentially, and that is written into some spec or another. I > think this solution is a reasonable one -- many of the other "easy" > solutions more explicitly violate the specs than this one, as far as I can > tell. Maybe I'm forgetting, but what's wrong with just failing the exec(2)? -- -Alfred Perlstein [alfred@freebsd.org] 'Instead of asking why a piece of software is using "1970s technology," start asking why software is ignoring 30 years of accumulated wisdom.' Tax deductible donations for FreeBSD: http://www.freebsdfoundation.org/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message