YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote:
>> YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote:
>>>> we use that argument to pass the
>>>> process requesting the rlimit change
>>> can it be different from curproc?
>> no. that's what the first version of the fix, as you can see.
>>
>> however, keep in mind that the context may be forwarded to a userland
>> daemon or a different machine on the network for decision, so I don't
>> think we can rely on curproc/curlwp here...
> 
> who decided to forward it can save the curproc by itself.

that's what I also thought initially, but I believe this will be
somewhat ugly: part of the context that is requested for decision
making will need to be "generated" by the secmodel code itself, rather
than just forwarded.

are you absolutely insisting on not passing the requesting proc? :)

-e.