Messages in this thread |  | | From | Kyle Moffett <> | | Subject | Re: Using fs views to isolate untrusted processes: I need an assistant architect in the USA for Phase I of a DARPA funded linux kernel project | | Date | Thu, 26 Aug 2004 00:52:37 -0400 |
| |
On Aug 26, 2004, at 00:29, viro@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk wrote: > Files and directories are not different in that respect - the only > overhead > is price of hash lookup when crossing the binding in either case. 1000 > bindings shouldn't be a problem - it's 3--5 per hash chain. Wrt > memory, > it's one struct vfsmount allocated per binding - IOW, about 80Kb total > for 1000 of those.
Where would I increase the hash size if I wanted to increase the number of bindings by an order of magnitude or so? I'm very interested in pursuing this possibility, because when combined with the procedure I described earlier, plus a little bit of extra work with capabilities and such it's very easy to build incredibly flexible and basically indestructible chroot environments with not much code.
Cheers, Kyle Moffett
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.12 GCM/CS/IT/U d- s++: a17 C++++>$ UB/L/X/*++++(+)>$ P+++(++++)>$ L++++(+++) E W++(+) N+++(++) o? K? w--- O? M++ V? PS+() PE+(-) Y+ PGP+++ t+(+++) 5 X R? tv-(--) b++++(++) DI+ D+ G e->++++$ h!*()>++$ r !y?(-) ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
- 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/
|  |