From owner-freebsd-hackers Sat Feb 11 18:19:17 1995 Return-Path: hackers-owner Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.9/8.6.6) id SAA00167 for hackers-outgoing; Sat, 11 Feb 1995 18:19:17 -0800 Received: from cs.weber.edu (cs.weber.edu [137.190.16.16]) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.9/8.6.6) with SMTP id LAA29773 for ; Sat, 11 Feb 1995 11:36:01 -0800 Received: by cs.weber.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1.1) id AA16977; Sat, 11 Feb 95 12:28:18 MST From: terry@cs.weber.edu (Terry Lambert) Message-Id: <9502111928.AA16977@cs.weber.edu> Subject: Re: MIT SHM X11 extensions? (fwd) To: peter@bonkers.taronga.com (Peter da Silva) Date: Sat, 11 Feb 95 12:28:17 MST Cc: davidg@Root.COM, jmb@kryten.atinc.com, hackers@FreeBSD.org In-Reply-To: <199502110306.VAA26420@bonkers.taronga.com> from "Peter da Silva" at Feb 10, 95 09:06:08 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4dev PL52] Sender: hackers-owner@FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > > Realistically, you could watermark it and start randomly crashing things > > at 90% swap utilization on the client instead of putting up "out of > > swap messages. > > And you were worried about all those core files? It was sarcasm. 8-). I think it's a stupid idea to make it so actions on the server can damage existing running images on the client. I also thing it is a security hole if you write exactly the right crap to a binary that's on a server while the client is waiting for input and allow it to be paged in. Opens up exactly the BSD 4.0 adb bug where you could modify the page that su would next use in memory for lack of copy on write on debugged pages. Terry Lambert terry@cs.weber.edu --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.