| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20091215053307.GA6837@heat> Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 00:33:08 -0500 From: Michael Stone <michael@...top.org> To: Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...il.com> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: setrlimit(RLIMIT_NETWORK) vs. prctl(???) Ulrich Drepper wrote: > On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 21:09, Michael Stone <michael@...top.org> wrote: >> That being said, I'm not wedded to the decision. Could you give me some >> more specific examples of the kinds of changes in low-level userspace code >> that you're worried about? > > As summarized in the paraphrased comment, it's a pain to deal with > rlimit extensions. It's easy enough to do all this using prctl() with > the same semantics and without forcing any other code to be modified. > I let others more competent to judge the usefulness. But using rlimit > as the interface is just plain wrong. I still like the rlimit-based interface because I think it gives good intuition about how to use the facility and about how it ought to be exposed to high-level parts of userland but it certainly can't hurt to cook up a version based on prctl() so that we can make a fair comparison of the two. I'll see what I can come up with. Regards, Michael -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists