netdev - Re: [RFC] per-containers tcp buffer limitation

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-Id: <20110828.020905.835790029923646089.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Sun, 28 Aug 2011 02:09:05 -0400 (EDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	matt.helsley@...il.com
Cc:	wagi@...om.org, chris.friesen@...band.com, xemul@...allels.com,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, ebiederm@...ssion.com,
	containers@...ts.osdl.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] per-containers tcp buffer limitation

From: Matthew Helsley <matt.helsley@...il.com>
Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2011 16:39:11 -0700

> LD_PRELOAD is widely regarded as a debugging and tracing method -- it's not
> usually suitable for implementing features. Why? Because there's nothing
> stopping an application from resetting LD_PRELOAD and re-exec'ing to escape
> the measurements and limitations such a preload implements. Plus naive use
> of LD_PRELOAD could easily interfere with other things that use it. For
> example what if you want to use DMTCP with this?

LD_PRELOAD is also terrible as a "normal" facility because it breaks
prelinking.
--
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