[lkml]   [1999]   [Jun]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Preparations for ZD's upcoming Apache/Linux benchmark
    Followup to:  <199906080523.PAA00875@vindaloo.atnf.CSIRO.AU>
    By author: Richard Gooch <>
    In newsgroup:
    > Linus Torvalds writes:
    > > And I'm very interested in people doing kernel modules for static
    > > content serving with fall-backs to Apache etc. That is, to a large
    > > degree, what NT seems to be doing, with IIS-only magic system calls
    > > etc. And we can do it so much more cleanly.
    > Does that mean you'd accept a patch which did this?
    > What about the arguments that this would be increased kernel bloat/do
    > it in user space, etc?

    Once again, do in kernel space what *makes sense* to do in kernel
    space. In this case, static serving with a policy from user space
    makes pretty good sense to do in kernel space (like knfsd vs unfsd)
    whereas it would be idiotic to do dynamic serving or set policy there.

    Besides, it's (a) optional and (b) localized (doesn't mess around with
    any other kernel code). You wouldn't want it in a machine that wasn't
    a web server as its main function, that's for sure.

    "The user's computer downloads the ActiveX code and simulates a 'Blue
    Screen' crash, a generally benign event most users are familiar with
    and that would not necessarily arouse suspicions."
    -- Security exploit description on

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:52    [W:0.021 / U:9.924 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site