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  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, 10 Nov 2009 18:31:51 -0800
From: (Eric W. Biederman)
To:	Andi Kleen <>
Cc:	Arnd Bergmann <>,
	Arjan van de Ven <>,
Subject: Re: [PATCH 22/23] sysctl arm: Remove binary sysctl support

Andi Kleen <> writes:

>> Can you name one binary sysctl value that gets accessed more
>> than a few times during the execution of a vaguely common
>> application? We're talking about microseconds for typically
>> write-once or read-once settings.
> For example shell scripts tend to execute programs quite a lot.
>> The question is just how many sysctl values you regard as both
>> common and performance critical.
> Very little, I suspect in fact it's only one.

I just took a second look, attempting to figure out how much startup
overhead my sysctl used.  I failed because I don't have a user space
old enough that it calls sysctl. I had to go back all of the way to
glibc-2.4 to find a version of nptl that calls sysctl at startup.
glibc-2.5 on i386 uses uname and all other architectures uses either
assumes smp is true or false without performing a system call.

I don't believe an inuse version of glibc exists that uses sysctl
except the ioperm implementation on arm.  So I can't see how being
a little slower will impact anyone.

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

Powered by blists - more mailing lists