--+ZmrHH5cGjskQnY1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sat, Aug 27, 2005 at 12:07:54AM +0300, Elad Efrat wrote:
> Geert Hendrickx wrote:
>=20
> > Users may accept that it works differently in future 4.0 than it would =
in 3.0. =20
>=20
> I already discussed this with Rui. If you insist on having this feature
> for NetBSD 3.0, then either implement a ``kern.privacy'' node and add
> something like ``kern.privacy.proc'', or I'll do it myself, but *please*
> don't use something like ``kern.showallprocs''.

If changing the naming gets us temporary consensus, let's do it.

> All it takes is two sysctl_createv() calls for the node and ``proc''
> knob, and writing a routine (``privacy_proc()''?) to determine if proc1
> can ``look'' at proc2. Then you call that function instead of the ``if''
> block the posted patch suggests.

I'm not sure that we really need this yet. While the sysctl is=20
externally-visible, this is not. I think this change can wait for=20
something more sophisticated in the future. Or a centralized framework,=20
when it makes more sense to call into the framework.

> That way you achieve what you want, you don't bound yourself to
> something that will be removed in the future, and you can easily extend
> it to other parts of the system (hint: netstat can do privacy too, and
> there's user demand).

I think the naming change is a good thing and leaves room for future=20
growth.

Take care,

Bill

--+ZmrHH5cGjskQnY1
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (NetBSD)

iD8DBQFDD5fKWz+3JHUci9cRAieOAJoDnn7FjsU0tcqnlDm7O+p4eNUBhgCePWqX
Ya0FZoFwXFrzj2A3sFNpid4=
=Uiak
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--+ZmrHH5cGjskQnY1--