Re: [PATCH] fexecve

[David Young <dyoung%pobox.com@localhost>]

On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 12:16:49AM +0100, Rhialto wrote:
> On Thu 15 Nov 2012 at 20:18:56 -0600, David Young wrote:
> > Also, enforcing access along "effective roots" lines may be inflexible
> > or unwieldy, maybe a more abstract notion of "process coalition" is
> > better.  Let each new root have a corresponding new coalition, but
> > perhaps we should be able to create a new coalition without changing
> > root, and change root without changing coalition.
> 
> That would make yet another process grouping, confusingly (dis)similar
> to process groups, controlling-terminal groups, sessions, (and am I
> forgetting more perhaps?)

Process groups, controlling-terminal groups, and sessions are not
already confusingly dissimilar from each other?  Perhaps coalitions
could subsume them all: process group, controlling-terminal groups, and
sessions could become coalitions of different privileges & properties.

Dave

-- 
David Young
dyoung%pobox.com@localhost    Urbana, IL    (217) 721-9981