On Wed, 25 Apr 2001, Greg KH wrote: > On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 08:40:54AM -0400, jmjonesat_private wrote: > > 2.2.x kernels: (PROC:GETUID) > > What about 2.4.x? The vfs got radically changed there, and that's what > we have to work with now. > > thanks, > > greg k-h > Working on it, still poking wire A onto header JBx (my junkyard is awesome, but not easily managed.) I'm lame/conservative and don't YET want to use 2.4.x on a production system (so sue me). (came from the Microsoft world, where jumping on a X.0 guarenteed you were screw'd) As an aside, 6:1 ain't all that bad!! Since 10,000,000 accesses were involved in my test. If your GETUID takes 5000ms/10,000,000 and proc fs accesses 30000ms/10,000,000 ... what's 3 microseconds for an unusual, error case? (other than 3 usec) Will Report Soon on 2.4.x J. Melvin Jones |>------------------------------------------------------ || J. MELVIN JONES jmjonesat_private |>------------------------------------------------------ || Microcomputer Systems Consultant || Software Developer || Web Site Design, Hosting, and Administration || Network and Systems Administration |>------------------------------------------------------ || http://www.jmjones.com/ |>------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ linux-security-module mailing list linux-security-moduleat_private http://mail.wirex.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-security-module
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed Apr 25 2001 - 10:25:52 PDT