On Mon, 6 Jun 2016 13:36:14 +0200 Martin Kühne <mysat...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hey Martin, > Having done my own research, no it can't. Also, the way it is designed > is a rather silly approach to security which is much more revealing > about today's idiotic way of writing software by including tens of > millions of SLOC of dependencies instead of doing the one thing for > the one job. pledge(1) is not a security-feature, but a hardening-feature. Keep that in mind. The secure design of software (i.e. separating into sub-components that do one thing and do it well) is still up the programmer. However, you bring up a good point. I mean, even we here at suckless are guilty of this. Why exactly do we need to have one dwm.c for dwm? One st.c for st? Especially in regard to st we could easily split the terminal emulation and rendering part. If we based the rendering on simple primitives, it would be relatively easy to port it to other platforms. What it all brings up is the issue of IPC. Can you people suggest your favourite approach to IPC? If not, maybe we could look into writing a very simple library (name-suggestion "sippy" :P) which builds on top of UDS and implements a very simple messaging protocol. > I personally find the idea of polluting our source code for this > appalling and suggest the wiki. We also had the idea yesterday on IRC to let the OpenBSD guys know and just help them apply the patch to the st port. Cheers FRIGN -- FRIGN <d...@frign.de>