Re: Centralizing exec()

[Randy Terbush <ra...@zyzzyva.com>]

> Randy Terbush wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > Since there have been no comments regarding the patch I submitted
> > to centralize the exec() code, I assume no one has a problem with
> > me committing it?  If I read no further comment, I will commit this
> > patch later tonight.
> 
> Well ... it seems to need some cleaning up (for example, there are an awful
> lot of dangerous looking void *s knocking around, and process limits aren't
> configurable). But that's probably easiest done once it is committed. Assuming
> it mostly works, I'm happy enough.

I don't think any of the void *s are my addition, but won't deny that
there could be further cleanup. 

It was my thought that adding configurability to the resource limiting
code could be done after this is commited. Perhaps even commiting
with the setrlimit() stuff commented out. I mainly added that in
response to your dilemma with the CGI stuff as an example of where
I would expect to put this.