Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Mon, 2 Oct 2000 14:53:58 +0200 | From | Andries Brouwer <> | Subject | Re: 32-bit pid_t / security |
| |
On Mon, Oct 02, 2000 at 11:47:41AM +0200, David Weinehall wrote:
> > Thus, "Hoping for security" is meaningless. > > But "Hoping for more security by having more PID's" is quite > > reasonable. If I am local user on your system then I can break in > > using a wraparound. If that takes 2147483647 processes I have to > > wait longer than when that takes 32000 processes. > > Please, I'm with you on this one, not against you. I want pid_t to be > increased. I'd rather see it sooner than later.
Good.
> What I meant was simply that _purely_ making the move out of security > reasons might not be reasonable.
So it is only here we disagree.
Andries - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |