From owner-freebsd-current Mon Nov 15 22:20:40 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (critter.freebsd.dk [212.242.40.131]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFCA3151E9 for ; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 22:20:35 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk) Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by critter.freebsd.dk (8.9.3/8.9.2) with ESMTP id HAA23516; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 07:19:52 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk) To: Matthew Dillon Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: PATCH for testing In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 15 Nov 1999 14:18:24 PST." <199911152218.OAA45512@apollo.backplane.com> Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 07:19:52 +0100 Message-ID: <23514.942733192@critter.freebsd.dk> From: Poul-Henning Kamp Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG In message <199911152218.OAA45512@apollo.backplane.com>, Matthew Dillon writes: >:http://phk.freebsd.dk/misc/p_args.patch >: >:The p_args.patch patch implements a cache of the commandline arguments >:in the process structure and makes ps(1) pick it up from there with >:sysctl rather than by groping around in the target process memory. >: >:This patch: >: Speeds up ps(1). > > Why don't we get rid of the 'e' option to ps while we are at it > considering how much of a security hole it is. I've never liked the > 'e' option. Hmm, well, I like to have it around for root at least... -- Poul-Henning Kamp FreeBSD coreteam member phk@FreeBSD.ORG "Real hackers run -current on their laptop." FreeBSD -- It will take a long time before progress goes too far! To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message