From owner-freebsd-current Thu Sep 17 22:22:11 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id WAA06897 for freebsd-current-outgoing; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 22:22:11 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from mail.camalott.com (mail.camalott.com [208.203.140.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id WAA06796 for ; Thu, 17 Sep 1998 22:21:59 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from joelh@gnu.org) Received: from detlev.UUCP (tex-151.camalott.com [208.229.74.151]) by mail.camalott.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id AAA24102; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 00:22:21 -0500 Received: (from joelh@localhost) by detlev.UUCP (8.9.1/8.9.1) id AAA03520; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 00:21:11 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from joelh) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 00:21:11 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <199809180521.AAA03520@detlev.UUCP> To: Robert Watson CC: Joel Ray Holveck , Andrzej Bialecki , freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG In-reply-to: Subject: Re: Limit 'ps' to show only user's processes From: Joel Ray Holveck Reply-to: joelh@gnu.org References: Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG >>> Several people have been asking for this "feature" from time to time, >>> namely that they could set a system variable (sysctl?) to limit 'ps' to >>> show not all processes, but only user's processes for euid!=0. >>> Would you consider this something worth implementing? >> This belongs as a switch to ps, not as a sysctl variable. > I agreed until we started with this 'procfs' thing. With ps sgid kmem and > pulling data from /dev/kmem, the appropriate place to put the limit was in > ps. With /procfs (and presumably a similar desire to limit data leaking), > presumably the kernel would also be involved in limiting the spread of > info. Perhaps we can get ps to only use procfs and that would be far more > desirable than this kmem approach. I guess one would also have to either > limit top, or have top use procfs. Good point, thanks for reminding me (even though my "switch" comment was based on an incorrect assumption). I agree, and add that a sysctl variable or kernel variable to set the permissions for procfs-directories to 500 may be doable. But, as somebody said, -security has work in this direction. Best, joelh -- Joel Ray Holveck - joelh@gnu.org - http://www.wp.com/piquan Fourth law of programming: Anything that can go wrong wi sendmail: segmentation violation - core dumped To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message