Thanks for the pull request, and welcome! The Rust team is excited to review your changes, and you should hear from @Mark-Simulacrum (or someone else) soon.

Please see the contribution instructions for more information.

r? @joshtriplett perhaps? This likely wants FCP, but I'm also not sure we want to make the guarantee this specific.

I do think this warrants an FCP.

I think if we're going to have behavior this specific (and potentially unexpected), we should document it.

@rfcbot merge

Team member @joshtriplett has proposed to merge this. The next step is review by the rest of the tagged team members:

• @Amanieu
• @BurntSushi
• @dtolnay
• @joshtriplett
• @m-ou-se
• @yaahc

No concerns currently listed.

Once a majority of reviewers approve (and at most 2 approvals are outstanding), this will enter its final comment period. If you spot a major issue that hasn't been raised at any point in this process, please speak up!

See this document for info about what commands tagged team members can give me.

Is the current behavior the one we want to keep? The specifics I wrote conflict with what #88716 wants.
Specifically, I say "This will also trigger a call to setgroups(0, NULL) in the child process if the parent is root ..."
Whereas implementing the change requested in #88716 would mean the call is triggered for any process that has the CAP_SETGID capability.

I agree that would should document this, however we should first resolve #88716 to decide the actual behavior we want to stabilize.

🔔 This is now entering its final comment period, as per the review above. 🔔

The final comment period, with a disposition to merge, as per the review above, is now complete.

As the automated representative of the governance process, I would like to thank the author for their work and everyone else who contributed.

This will be merged soon.

triage:
looks like #88716 is still waiting on resolution

Closing in favor of #95982