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  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, 1 Jan 2008 00:01:54 -0500
From:	Theodore Tso <>
To:	Bodo Eggert <>
Cc:	Al Viro <>,
	David Miller <>,,,,,
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Force UNIX domain sockets to be built in

On Tue, Jan 01, 2008 at 04:45:21AM +0100, Bodo Eggert wrote:
> > udev-free != embedded.
> But UNIX=m == waste RAM and have an effectively b0rken system until the 
> module is loaded. 

Well, the system isn't necessarily totally broken.  If you don't use
udev, then system will be crippled, but not totally broken.  Then
again, besides udev, packages such as dbus, gdm, and acpid all use
Unix Domain Sockets --- not to mention cups, avahi-daemon, bluez,
emacsclient, and any X program when the DISPLAY is :0.0.

The question is whether the size of the Unix domain sockets support is
worth the complexity of yet another config option that we expose to
the user.  For the embedded world, OK, maybe they want to save 14k of
non-swappable memory.  But for the non-embedded world, given the 117k
mandatory memory usage of sysfs, or the 124k memory usage of the core
networking stack, never mind the 3 megabytes of memory used by objects
in the kernel subdirectory, it's not clear that it's worth worrying
over 14k of memory, especially when many Unix programs assume
that Unix Domain Sockets are present.

						- Ted
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists