> We haven't broken anything by doing that, we've made things better. The
> privilege requirement around ndd -get <foo> was an artifact of the
> implementation, and not a documented requirement.
I agree that it's an artifact, but as Girish points out, it was indeed
documented (in privileges(5)). But I see no issue with removing that
verbiage in the documentation and broadening the phrasing -- e.g.:
PRIV_SYS_IP_CONFIG
Allow a process to configure a system's IP interfaces and
routes. Allow a process to configure TCP/IP parameters. Allow a
process to pop anchored STREAMS modules with matching zoneid.
--
meem
