lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Jan]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: RFC: Network privilege separation.
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 10:47:21PM +0200, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
> Le lundi 12 janvier 2009 22:55:47 Andi Kleen, vous avez écrit :
> > Fair point, although I'm afraid you didn't do a very good
> > job explaining your reasons, so it sounds like a
> > quite arbitary decision.
>
> Fair enough. It's just way too much interface/adaptation work compared to the
> benefit. Especially considering that it would be much easier, and almost as
> secure, with a "relaxed" SECCOMP.

What system calls would you want in a relaxed SECCOMP?

> And on top of that, it's causing
> unnecessary overhead (we're also interested in those small Linux-based

Would be interesting to try that out -- just adding two memcpyies to
the existing code and see how much slower it gets. My guess
would be not very, even e.g. on a Atom system (which are really
not all that slow).

Presumably you could always #ifdef it if it's really a problem
on some specific system. That would be needed anyways for
non linux systems.

-And

--
ak@linux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.
--
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-01-12 22:39    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans