From owner-freebsd-current Sat Sep 11 19:26: 5 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mailgw00.execpc.com (mailgw00.execpc.com [169.207.1.78]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9016414CA2 for ; Sat, 11 Sep 1999 19:26:03 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from hamilton@pobox.com) Received: from woodstock.monkey.net (lakertya-2-87.mdm.mkt.execpc.com [169.207.118.215]) by mailgw00.execpc.com (8.9.1) id VAA09812; Sat, 11 Sep 1999 21:25:49 -0500 Received: from pobox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by woodstock.monkey.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11D73CA; Sat, 11 Sep 1999 21:27:27 -0500 (CDT) To: chris@calldei.com Cc: Peter Wemm , Blaz Zupan , freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: ps doesn't need privileges? In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 11 Sep 1999 13:22:07 CDT." <19990911132207.J906@holly.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Sat, 11 Sep 1999 21:27:27 -0500 From: Jon Hamilton Message-Id: <19990912022727.11D73CA@woodstock.monkey.net> Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG In message <19990911132207.J906@holly.dyndns.org>, Chris Costello wrote: } On Sun, Sep 12, 1999, Peter Wemm wrote: } > Now that I think about it, it shouldn't be too hard (TM) to finish off the } > /proc/pid/cmdline stuff so that ps didn't need to access /mem and didn't } > need setgid at all. } } What about the `e' flag? What about people who don't use /proc? Maybe I'm misreading; is the plan to make ps work (at least with most of the bells and whistles) only with /proc, or is the plan to make it an option to either strip the setgid and use proc, or to leave it and use kmem? -- Jon Hamilton hamilton@pobox.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message