From owner-freebsd-hackers  Sun Apr 27 12:59:10 1997
Return-Path: <owner-hackers>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id MAA26023
          for hackers-outgoing; Sun, 27 Apr 1997 12:59:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from phaeton.artisoft.com (phaeton.Artisoft.COM [198.17.250.50])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA26018
          for <hackers@freebsd.org>; Sun, 27 Apr 1997 12:59:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from terry@localhost) by phaeton.artisoft.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) id MAA09122; Sun, 27 Apr 1997 12:53:07 -0700
From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org>
Message-Id: <199704271953.MAA09122@phaeton.artisoft.com>
Subject: Re: sysctl -A
To: eivind@nic.follonett.no (Eivind Eklund)
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 1997 12:53:06 -0700 (MST)
Cc: joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de, hackers@freebsd.org
In-Reply-To: <199704271447.QAA08219@nic.follonett.no> from "Eivind Eklund" at Apr 27, 97 04:47:45 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> If the filesystem flags (immutable etc) is pulled along far enough into the
> kernel, it might be possible to do this by adding a separate flag indicating
> that the executable in question is allowed to do hardware access.
> It would of course need to be unchangable on securelevel > 0, and require the
> immutable flag for the executable.
> 
> Also, it is quite a hack, and I don't think I'd consider the ugliness
> worthwhile.  However, if this _really_ is a priority, it might be an
> option.

Heh.  And we would put a file containing this attribute data in a
subdirectory of /etc/...

Heh.  You've invented SVR4 flags for "this binary can get a reserved
port", etc..


					Terry Lambert
					terry@lambert.org
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.