[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090112215001.GG23848@one.firstfloor.org>
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 22:50:01 +0100
From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To: Rémi Denis-Courmont <rdenis@...phalempin.com>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Michael Stone <michael@...top.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: RFC: Network privilege separation.
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 10:47:21PM +0200, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
> Le lundi 12 janvier 2009 22:55:47 Andi Kleen, vous avez écrit :
> > Fair point, although I'm afraid you didn't do a very good
> > job explaining your reasons, so it sounds like a
> > quite arbitary decision.
>
> Fair enough. It's just way too much interface/adaptation work compared to the
> benefit. Especially considering that it would be much easier, and almost as
> secure, with a "relaxed" SECCOMP.
What system calls would you want in a relaxed SECCOMP?
> And on top of that, it's causing
> unnecessary overhead (we're also interested in those small Linux-based
Would be interesting to try that out -- just adding two memcpyies to
the existing code and see how much slower it gets. My guess
would be not very, even e.g. on a Atom system (which are really
not all that slow).
Presumably you could always #ifdef it if it's really a problem
on some specific system. That would be needed anyways for
non linux systems.
-And
--
ak@...ux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists