Subject: Re: kern.showallprocs implementation
To: Elad Efrat <elad@NetBSD.org>
From: Steven M. Bellovin <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 08/30/2005 11:43:40
In message <43147A07.3080508@NetBSD.org>, Elad Efrat writes:
>Martin Husemann wrote:
>> I probably did not pay attention close enough for the start of this thread o
>> have memory swapped out, but I fail to understand the "bsd" part in this
>> name. Can someone explain it? Are we going to see a "security.linux" node
>> someday? Why not just "security"?
>Because that is how it was decided to implement it in FreeBSD.
>I have no idea why we have to maintain compatibility in this regard with
>FreeBSD, and my suggestion is to have this specific feature (and perhaps
>others of the same node in FreeBSD, if decided to implement them) under
>a ``security.generic'' or similar node.
>Like Rui said, we may want to have various subsystems under ``security''
>so, for better organization, it might be better to have the discussed
>feature under its own tree. I don't think this is the ``bsd'' security
>model, so ``security.bsd'', IMHO, is a *bad* name.
Compatibilty is a good thing, in my opinion. I suggest that we find
out why FreeBSD picked the name they did.
--Steven M. Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb