Re: [patch] [sg]etaffinity hooks

From: Greg KH (gregat_private)
Date: Wed Oct 09 2002 - 20:10:52 PDT

  • Next message: Crispin Cowan: "Re: [patch] [sg]etaffinity hooks"

    On Wed, Oct 09, 2002 at 06:37:27PM -0700, Crispin Cowan wrote:
    > I would avoid mentioning the covert channel. We have explicitly avoided 
    > providing any defense against covert channels. IMHO, it is hopeless to 
    > re-factor Linux to the degree necessary to even come close to closing 
    > covert channels.
    
    <snip>
    
    > This seems reasonable: appeal to the symmetry & completeness of hooking 
    > both nice and affinity, and point out that neither is on a kernel fast-path.
    
    You do realize that lots of kernel programmers read this list, and that
    the archives are searchable?
    
    Any argument that you are going to try to make, that involves hiding
    information or discussions that you have had in public, aren't going to
    go very far :)
    
    thanks,
    
    greg k-h
    _______________________________________________
    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 Oct 09 2002 - 20:15:31 PDT