Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 22 Jan 2005 11:32:42 +0100 | From | Pavel Machek <> | Subject | Re: seccomp for 2.6.11-rc1-bk8 |
| |
Hi!
> > > > Yes, but do you care about the performance of syscalls > > > > which the program isn't allowed to call at all ? ;) > > > > > > Heh, no, but it's for every syscall not just denied ones. Point is > > > simply that ptrace (complexity aside) doesn't scale the same. > > > > seccomp is about CPU-intense calculation jobs - the only syscalls > > allowed are read/write (and sigreturn). UML implements a full kernel > > via ptrace and CPU-intense applications run at native speed. > > Indeed. Performance is not an issue (in the short term at least, since > those syscalls will be probably network bound). > > The only reason I couldn't use ptrace is what you found, that is the oom > killing of the parent (or a mistake of the CPU seller that kills it by > mistake by hand, I must prevent him to screw himself ;). Even after > fixing ptrace, I've an hard time to prefer ptrace, when a simple, > localized and self contained solution like seccomp is available.
Well, seccomp is also getting very little testing, when ptrace gets a lot of testing; I know that seccomp is simple, but I believe testing coverage still make ptrace better choice. Pavel -- People were complaining that M$ turns users into beta-testers... ...jr ghea gurz vagb qrirybcref, naq gurl frrz gb yvxr vg gung jnl! - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |