From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Mar 22 10:18:25 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2ED4416A4CF; Mon, 22 Mar 2004 10:18:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp1.server.rpi.edu (smtp1.server.rpi.edu [128.113.2.1]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC1D243D45; Mon, 22 Mar 2004 10:18:24 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from drosih@rpi.edu) Received: from [128.113.24.47] (gilead.netel.rpi.edu [128.113.24.47]) by smtp1.server.rpi.edu (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i2MIINHB016764; Mon, 22 Mar 2004 13:18:24 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: drosih@mail.rpi.edu Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20040322155901.GA17891@stack.nl> References: <20040322155901.GA17891@stack.nl> Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 13:18:22 -0500 To: Jilles Tjoelker From: Garance A Drosihn Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . canit . ca) cc: arch@freebsd.org cc: freebsd-standards@freebsd.org Subject: Re: PATCH for a more-POSIX `ps', and related adventures X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 18:18:25 -0000 At 4:59 PM +0100 3/22/04, Jilles Tjoelker wrote: >On Sat, Mar 20, 2004, Garance A Drosihn wrote: > >> Adds a `-R ruserlist' option, which is the same as what >> SYSv3 describes for `-u' (we already have a `-u'). >> Amazingly, none of solaris, linux, or irix seem to >> have any kind of `-R' option. > >SUSv3 says -u selects by effective uid and -U selects by real uid. >FreeBSD -U selects by effective uid and -u is something else totally. >This is only of the (few) obstacles to SUSv3 (not XSI) compatibility >(another being the default selection). XSI level compatibility would >require a lot of POLA violation. Ugh. I kept thinking I was reading that one backwards, but somehow I managed to keep convincing myself that I had it right. Well, I am not comfortable suggesting that we change -U's definition this far into the life of 5.x. That could be pretty confusing (even though it is a subtle change). Great. So what should I do here? Add a `-E' option for "effective userid"? In fact, add both `-E' and `-R', and then we would have two options that we could MFC into 4.x as well as 5.x (without any conflict). At some later date (in 6.x?), we would have the option of changing '-U' to match the standard definition. Amazingly, both `-E' and `-R' seem to be unused on the other OS's I have here. I am not thrilled with that idea, but at the moment I can't think of a better one. I *would* like to support matches of both real and effective users. I guess we could add some other option which would say "use the POSIX definitions of -u and -U", but that doesn't exactly thrill me either. Anyone have any other suggestions? Should I just leave it alone for now? -- Garance Alistair Drosehn = gad@gilead.netel.rpi.edu Senior Systems Programmer or gad@freebsd.org Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute or drosih@rpi.edu