On Mon, Nov 12, 2001 at 01:06:43PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Neal and me actually plan to extend the feature. We feel that a user should > > be able to control tasks running without user ids from anywhere within the > > system (say, from another terminal). Thus we want to associate an owner > > with each login collection, which is inherited by childs. The owner is > > then allowed to send signals to those processes (without user ids). > > That's a reasonable way. The use of setlogin as the marker makes a > common-ancestor model work for nouser tasks all being run from the > same shell, when we noticed that this would be necessary. > > However, I become reluctant to go too far in this direction. At some > point, all you're really doing is allowing anonymous users to create > new user ids when they want. If that's a useful feature, then let's > add it directly.
Just a quick comment, I think it IS a useful feature. It'd allow the "subroots" or whatever I called it idea that I discussed a while back. > > > Also, we want a parent-child relationship between login groups, as this > > allows a nouser to create new login groups (to isolate them from each > > other), while still holding control over them. The owner is here "root" for > > all login groups (inherited from init), so the above extension doesn't work > > for this case. (While this extension alone doesn't help in the above case, > > where the user logs in from another terminal and wants to have control). [1] > > Yeah, I can see this as useful. -- Adam Olsen, aka Rhamphoryncus
