From owner-freebsd-current  Thu Nov 18 17: 4:29 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from apollo.backplane.com (apollo.backplane.com [216.240.41.2])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88F52155D4
	for <current@FreeBSD.ORG>; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 17:04:24 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from dillon@apollo.backplane.com)
Received: (from dillon@localhost)
	by apollo.backplane.com (8.9.3/8.9.1) id RAA88682;
	Thu, 18 Nov 1999 17:04:20 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from dillon)
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 17:04:20 -0800 (PST)
From: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com>
Message-Id: <199911190104.RAA88682@apollo.backplane.com>
To: Warner Losh <imp@village.org>
Cc: Alex Zepeda <jazepeda@pacbell.net>,
	Andreas Klemm <andreas@klemm.gtn.com>, David Greenman <dg@root.com>,
	Sean Eric Fagan <sef@kithrup.com>, current@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: PATCH for testing 
References: <Pine.BSF.4.10.9911172341110.397-100000@localhost>   <199911181924.MAA27434@harmony.village.org>
Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

:
:In message <Pine.BSF.4.10.9911172341110.397-100000@localhost> Alex Zepeda writes:
:: Or perhaps restricting -U to root only?  Since -e w/out -U isn't harmful,
:: no?
:
:-e w/o -U is still harmful.
:
:Warner

    I am all for removing -e, but I don't really like the idea of making
    it optional nor do I like the idea of trying to maintain the capability
    for the user's own processes - that simply makes the code even more
    complex then it already is.  The danger is that the option exists in
    the first place.

					-Matt
					Matthew Dillon 
					<dillon@backplane.com>


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message