linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/7] utrace/ptrace

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-Id: <20091223195532.8E65316DB@magilla.sf.frob.com>
Date:	Wed, 23 Dec 2009 11:55:32 -0800 (PST)
From:	Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>
To:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
	Ananth Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@...ibm.com>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	"Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@...hat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, utrace-devel@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] utrace/ptrace

> Do you have an estimate or better numbers how the overhead of 
> seccomp-over-utrace compares to the current in-tree seccomp?

I never measured it.  I would estimate that any difference one way or
another is in the noise.  The point of seccomp is to run a process that
almost never makes any system calls.  The only effects of utrace for that
use are on the system call path itself, and the essential effects there
(i.e. taking the tracing path vs the hot path) are the same as what the old
seccomp implementation does.

If you have some example uses of seccomp or something that can serve as a
benchmark for it, I would be glad to measure the difference.

Thanks,
Roland
--
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/