linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] fs: introduce sendfd() syscall

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 02 Dec 2014 08:42:54 -0800
From:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:	Alex Dubov <alex.dubov@...il.com>
Cc:	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Alex Dubov <oakad@...oo.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] fs: introduce sendfd() syscall

On Wed, 2014-12-03 at 03:23 +1100, Alex Dubov wrote:

> Same as SIGKILL. And yet, our machines are still working fine.
> 
> If process A has sufficient capability to send signals to process B,
> then process B is already at its mercy, fds or not fds.

Tell me how a 128 threads program can use this new mechanism in a
scalable way.

One signal per thread ?

I guess we'll keep AF_UNIX then, thank you.


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/