I would definitely like it to be harder to create shar files. They may have served a purpose in the 80s, but now they are absurd.

I wouldn't be surprised if we find some cases where people have to adapt to this change, but I think it's the right one. Eventually we might even want to forbid root entirely for this target, but that may be a bridge too far.

This seems like a good change. I have some vague memories about complaints when I changed things in this area, but I think that might have been the largely unrelated "distribution" target.

Seems like a good first step

Looks like a generally viable solution to me.

Looks good! A few quibbles (mostly things that would make things easier for use in CheriBSD), but nothing mandatory.

I've tempered the commit message text.

Oops, it looks like our last comments raced.

I like the overall idea. A few issues reviewing from a syscall API perspective:

• No manpage
• missing 32-bit compat code
• I'm not overly sold on the compatibility model beyond the size argument and a flag mask check. I can't convince myself that enough edge cases have been covered to make it worth covering any of them.

Makes sense in an everything is awful sort of way. :)

Looks generally good. I think it's OK to tag getentropy as compliant even if it's not quite yet.

I wish there was a comment justifying the - 0 pattern...

The general idea seems fine.

In D47258#1083446, @mat wrote:

I'm sorry, I am not quite sure I understand what this is for.

Be more clear that arguments are not (yet) allowed

Improve comments