From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG  Sun Sep 14 10:09:54 2003
Return-Path: <owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG>
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 8E24516A4BF; Sun, 14 Sep 2003 10:09:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fledge.watson.org (fledge.watson.org [204.156.12.50])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 9A19F43FB1; Sun, 14 Sep 2003 10:09:53 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from robert@fledge.watson.org)
Received: from fledge.watson.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by fledge.watson.org (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h8EH8ZrO019690;
	Sun, 14 Sep 2003 13:08:35 -0400 (EDT)
	(envelope-from robert@fledge.watson.org)
Received: from localhost (robert@localhost)h8EH8ZSq019687;
	Sun, 14 Sep 2003 13:08:35 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2003 13:08:35 -0400 (EDT)
From: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org>
X-Sender: robert@fledge.watson.org
To: Dag-Erling =?iso-8859-1?q?Sm=F8rgrav?= <des@des.no>
In-Reply-To: <xzp3cezpcg9.fsf@dwp.des.no>
Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1030914130145.19668A-100000@fledge.watson.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE
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 <cvs-all.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all>,
	<mailto:cvs-all-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/cvs-all>
List-Post: <mailto:cvs-all@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cvs-all-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all>,
	<mailto:cvs-all-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2003 17:09:54 -0000


On Sun, 14 Sep 2003, Dag-Erling Sm=F8rgrav wrote:

> Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> 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.
>=20
> 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?=20

Well, until 5.x, this limit didn't exist, so right now I think this is
still a question of "how conservative to we want to be relative to the
status quo".  I agree in principle, but we should get the Diablo port
(software?) fixed first.

Robert N M Watson             FreeBSD Core Team, TrustedBSD Projects
robert@fledge.watson.org      Network Associates Laboratories