Re: split pledge "ioctl" into "bpf" and "tape"

2017-01-23 Thread Theo de Raadt
>Theo de Raadt wrote: >> So let's just split these cases out. "ioctl"'s number gets reused for >> tape, and a new "bpf" promise is added.. That paves the way for a >> more complex diff coming in a few hours. > >The mention of bpf made me worried that dhclient would be affected, but I >checked

Re: split pledge "ioctl" into "bpf" and "tape"

2017-01-23 Thread Ted Unangst
Theo de Raadt wrote: > So let's just split these cases out. "ioctl"'s number gets reused for > tape, and a new "bpf" promise is added.. That paves the way for a > more complex diff coming in a few hours. The mention of bpf made me worried that dhclient would be affected, but I checked and it's

Re: split pledge "ioctl" into "bpf" and "tape"

2017-01-22 Thread Mark Kettenis
> From: Theo de Raadt > Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2017 20:52:14 -0700 > > Early during pledge development the "ioctl" promise was a kitchen > sink of options until we could differentiate use cases, identify > common patterns, and then create domain-specific promises. > > only 4

split pledge "ioctl" into "bpf" and "tape"

2017-01-22 Thread Theo de Raadt
Early during pledge development the "ioctl" promise was a kitchen sink of options until we could differentiate use cases, identify common patterns, and then create domain-specific promises. only 4 cases remain of "ioctl" remain: - pax/tar/cpio experience great difficulty finding tape drives