On Wednesday, February 29, 2012 8:25:07 am Konstantin Belousov wrote: > On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 02:37:25PM +0200, Mikolaj Golub wrote: > > > > On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 12:03:00 +0000 Robert N. M. Watson wrote: > > > > RNMW> I think the monitoring aspect of the patch is fine. > > > > RNMW> The bit I was worried about was external umask changes. This can > > cause > > RNMW> race conditions for applications that manage their umask -- for > > RNMW> example, bsdtar, if I recall correctly. It's one thing to use a > > RNMW> debugger to force an application to change its umask -- the developer > > RNMW> needs to know they are changing application behaviour. But exposing a > > RNMW> feature that can lead to correct applications but incorrect results > > is > > RNMW> a risky thing to do, hence my objection. > > > > RNMW> I think given the other objections, it would be wise to remove write > > RNMW> access to process umasks, but retain read access for procstat (which > > is > > RNMW> quite useful, I agree). > > > > I still don't see why having a sysctl RW is worse than asking users to run > > something like in the attach when they need to change umask for another > > process, but ok, if people don't like RW I will remove it. > > > What is done is attach is much worse then the sysctl, just because > debugger attach often causes spurious EINTR, indeed seriously disrupting > applications, as opposed to some uncertain damage that could be done in > theory.
kgdb doesn't though, and presumably for umask you would change it via kgdb, so from the running process' perspective it would look the same as changing it via sysctl. -- John Baldwin _______________________________________________ svn-src-head@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-head To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-head-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
