On Mon, Nov 12, 2001 at 01:06:43PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Marcus Brinkmann <Marcus.Brinkmann@ruhr-uni-bochum.de> 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). 
> Yeah, I can see this as useful.
Adam Olsen, aka Rhamphoryncus