From owner-freebsd-current Tue Apr 18 5:36: 4 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from overcee.netplex.com.au (peter1.yahoo.com [208.48.107.4]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40ABF37B5FC for ; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 05:35:47 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from peter@netplex.com.au) Received: from netplex.com.au (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by overcee.netplex.com.au (Postfix) with ESMTP id A24141CD7; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 05:35:37 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from peter@netplex.com.au) X-Mailer: exmh version 2.1.1 10/15/1999 To: Julian Elischer Cc: Soren Schmidt , current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: HEADSUP! linprocfs going away in 72 hours. In-Reply-To: Message from Julian Elischer of "Tue, 18 Apr 2000 03:51:44 PDT." <38FC3E40.446B9B3D@elischer.org> Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 05:35:37 -0700 From: Peter Wemm Message-Id: <20000418123537.A24141CD7@overcee.netplex.com.au> Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Julian Elischer wrote: > I presume this means that it should remain part of the standard system > but that the source should be moved to /sys/i386/linux? > > as long as it remains part of the system I don't care where it lives.. > It's too massively important to totally drop. Having it as a port was > a losing proposition. The biggest problem is that it re-opens a security hole that was explicitly patched in procfs. Also, the way I see it, the linux procfs should probably only be visible to linux sysvec processes... It would be a damn shame to let /compat/linux/procfs "sneak in" to the expected system requirements for bsd programs so that developers can use the easy way out rather than doing something properly. > Julian Cheers, -Peter To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message