From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Sep 14 09:22:23 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5003016A4BF; Sun, 14 Sep 2003 09:22:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.broadpark.no (mail.broadpark.no [217.13.4.2]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C47743FBF; Sun, 14 Sep 2003 09:22:22 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from des@des.no) Received: from smtp.des.no (37.80-203-228.nextgentel.com [80.203.228.37]) by mail.broadpark.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C50F79402; Sun, 14 Sep 2003 18:22:21 +0200 (MEST) Received: by smtp.des.no (Pony Express, from userid 666) id 038E298C10; Sun, 14 Sep 2003 18:22:20 +0200 (CEST) Received: from dwp.des.no (dwp.des.no [10.0.0.4]) by smtp.des.no (Pony Express) with ESMTP id E024298ABE; Sun, 14 Sep 2003 18:22:14 +0200 (CEST) Received: by dwp.des.no (Postfix, from userid 2602) id C1DC8B822; Sun, 14 Sep 2003 18:22:14 +0200 (CEST) To: Robert Watson References: From: des@des.no (Dag-Erling =?iso-8859-1?q?Sm=F8rgrav?=) Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2003 18:22:14 +0200 In-Reply-To: (Robert Watson's message of "Sun, 14 Sep 2003 11:43:32 -0400 (EDT)") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.090024 (Oort Gnus v0.24) Emacs/21.3 (berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.0 required=8.0 tests=EMAIL_ATTRIBUTION,IN_REP_TO,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,REFERENCES, REPLY_WITH_QUOTES,USER_AGENT_GNUS_UA version=2.55 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.55 (1.174.2.19-2003-05-19-exp) cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org cc: src-committers@FreeBSD.org cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/kern kern_prot.c X-BeenThere: cvs-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the entire tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2003 16:22:23 -0000 Robert Watson writes: > That said, to be frank, no, I'm not sure I want to do this. But I also > want to make sure we don't break important applications. What about important applications that rely on the fact that unprivileged users can't send SIGALRM to privileged processes? That used to be the case for ping(8) (though I don't think it is any more), and there may be others. Shouldn't we err on the side of caution? DES --=20 Dag-Erling Sm=F8rgrav - des@des.no