From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261963AbUL0UFM (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Dec 2004 15:05:12 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261961AbUL0UFM (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Dec 2004 15:05:12 -0500 Received: from salazar.rnl.ist.utl.pt ([193.136.164.251]:13783 "EHLO admin.rnl.ist.utl.pt") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261963AbUL0UEo (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Dec 2004 15:04:44 -0500 Message-ID: <41D06AD7.6010706@rnl.ist.utl.pt> Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2004 20:04:39 +0000 From: "Pedro Venda (SYSADM)" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.9 (Windows/20041103) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jan Engelhardt Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC] pid randomness References: <41D064D5.1030900@rnl.ist.utl.pt> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Jan Engelhardt wrote: >>I don't know if this has been discussed before... but I'd like to ask why isn't >>the pids randomized by default? >>What are the pros and cons of this? What are your oppinions on this subjet? > > > Why would _you_ need it? It's a simple security measure that I think is easy to implement. I'd agree that it's not there because of the golden rule: "keep it simple", but I'd also like to know if that's really the reason it's not there. and yes, I know there are some patch sets that already implement this. regards, pedro venda. -- Pedro João Lopes Venda email: pjvenda@rnl.ist.utl.pt http://maxwell.rnl.ist.utl.pt Equipa de Administração de Sistemas Rede das Novas Licenciaturas (RNL) Instituto Superior Técnico http://www.rnl.ist.utl.pt http://mega.ist.utl.pt