mhorne emaste pauamma_gundo.com
- Group Reviewers
- rG664a0fc4aa9e: ptrace(2): Disabling: Describe influence of security.bsd.see_jail_proc
rGb0186790020f: ptrace(2): Disabling: Describe influence of security.bsd.see_jail_proc
rGd952820105d6: ptrace(2): Disabling: Describe influence of security.bsd.see_jail_proc
Yes, it's a typo.
Setting this sysctl to zero value disallows .Fn ptrace requests from processes having one of their effective and supplementary groups not being the effective nor one of the supplementary groups of the target process.
But I'm not sure this is clearer. More accurate perhaps.
I don't see the connection between your proposed change and the fact that the requesting process may not be in a jail. Also, I don't see how replacing "ancestor" with "parent or ancestor" is clearer (I think it is likely to increase confusion, since the reader may then wonder what "ancestor" exactly means, and if it excludes "parent").
In terms of vocabulary, I don't like distinguishing "jailed" vs. "unjailed" processes, since even "unjailed" ones are in prison0 as you pointed out and because this would clearly complicate the text. In other words, I'm assuming that some process' jail is always well defined (be it prison0), i.e., that every process is jailed. So I'm not that inclined to change the formulation here, unless we absolutely want to maintain the "jailed" vs. "unjailed" difference throughout the documentation, which to me sounds like an artifact of a time before hierarchical jails.
What do you find unclear here exactly? Is it just the formulation, or the concepts? Is it the fact that the previous proposition talks about processes, and the last (after the comma) talks about jails, which are referred to with "former" and "latter" in reference to the previously described processes?
I think it is fine with just "ancestor".
My formulation was primarily an effort to avoid "former and latter". Use of these words is common and understood, and yet they still obscure what you are referring to in some way, so I find it useful to avoid them when they seem to complicate rather than simplify a sentence. I find that they complicate the sentence here.
As for the jailed/unjailed thing, you are right that my wording doesn't meaningfully distinguish between them more than yours already did.
Anyhow this is a suggestion, the change is acceptable already, but I forgot to do that.
At this point in the series, "effective" should in fact read "real" in the proposed text.
Anyway, I've just noticed that the initial text and my version in fact just don't correspond to reality.
So going to propose something else.
I see. I have another proposal going into this direction.