Date: Sun, 7 Nov 1999 10:15:42 -0500 (EST) From: Brian Fundakowski Feldman <green@FreeBSD.org> To: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Procfs' pointers to files. Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.10.9911071014030.4714-100000@green.myip.org> In-Reply-To: <199911070807.AAA01199@kithrup.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 7 Nov 1999, Sean Eric Fagan wrote: > I don't, but what I like doesn't matter, it seems -- Warner knows everything. > So I'm sure he knows better than I do the overhead this will impose, and the > impracticality in a general system. > > Unix really isn't set up to carry around 'official pathnames,' due to the > existence of symlinks and other fun stuff. Other systems are set up for this > -- my favourite was EMBOS, by ELXSI -- and there are some _really_ nifty > things you can do, if you have it. (Watchdogs and program-based-access-lists > are my two favourite, the latter allowing you to get rid of SUID/SGID in many > cases. There is a paper available on implementing watchdogs under unix > [4.2bsd, I believe] that discusses some of this. If you're willing to cover > 60-80% of the cases, instead of 95-100%, it's considerably easier.) > The _REALLY_ obvious solution to this is to find the real path on exec() and store the pointer in proc. How is this full of "overhead" and "impractical"? -- Brian Fundakowski Feldman \ FreeBSD: The Power to Serve! / green@FreeBSD.org `------------------------------' To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.10.9911071014030.4714-100000>