Re: [patch] [sg]etaffinity hooks

From: Seth Arnold (sarnoldat_private)
Date: Mon Oct 07 2002 - 11:05:36 PDT

  • Next message: Stephen Smalley: "Re: [patch] [sg]etaffinity hooks"

    On Mon, Oct 07, 2002 at 12:20:54PM -0400, Stephen Smalley wrote:
    > The attached patch adds hooks to the setaffinity and getaffinity calls in
    > the 2.5 kernel, which were introduced in Linux 2.5.8.  Any objections to
    > committing this patch to the lsm-2.5 BitKeeper tree?  This patch should
    > also be submitted to lkml for inclusion in 2.5.
    
    Stephen, please indulge my curiousities and explain what this mediates?
    As I understand the process affinities, these hooks would mediate how
    tightly a process is bound to a specific group of processors to help
    prevent cache thrashing; I don't see a point to mediating cpu affinity
    in an access control module. (Well, aside from covert timing channels,
    but I thought we more or less came to an agreement that covert channels
    were out of scope for a 2.6 LSM?)
    
    Why? :)
    
    Thanks Stephen
    
    -- 
    "There's an old saying in Tennessee, i know it's in Texas, probably in
    Tennessee, that says, 'Fool me once... shame on ... shame on .. you; but
    fool--you can't get fooled again.'" -- Commander in Chief of the US Military
    
    
    

    _______________________________________________ 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 : Mon Oct 07 2002 - 11:06:23 PDT