Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com> writes:Well the style of kernel preemption is generally an implementation detail that is not visible to user space. Bind all of the UP processes to a single cpu. Right. But in a container that look like a full system arguably this is doable. There are a few additional details that would be needed to ensure containers are isolated from each other that would be needed to ensure this is effective but those are fairly minor. When we get to the point where this is a real concern I believe the isolation will be sufficient that this it is a valid question to ask. If there is nothing visible to user space I don't care. But security modules are fundamentally about changing when -EPERM happens so are very visible to user space. Eric -
| Alan Cox | [PATCH 01/76] drivers/serial/crisv10.c: add missing put_tty_driver |
| Greg KH | [GIT PATCH] driver core patches against 2.6.24 |
| Adrian Bunk | Re: Linux 2.6.21 |
| David Miller | Slow DOWN, please!!! |
git: | |
| Jon Smirl | Re: VCS comparison table |
| Junio C Hamano | [RFD] On deprecating "git-foo" for builtins |
| Eric Wong | [PATCH] archimport improvements |
| Johannes Schindelin | Re: [FAQ?] Rationale for git's way to manage the index |
| Richard Stallman | Real men don't attack straw men |
| GVG GVG | ssh_exchange_identification: Connection closed by remote host |
| Leon Dippenaar | New tcp stack attack |
| Henning Brauer | Re: About Xen: maybe a reiterative question but .. |
| David Miller | [GIT]: Networking |
| Mark Lord | Re: 2.6.25-rc8: FTP transfer errors |
| Alexey Dobriyan | [PATCH 01/33] nf_conntrack_sip: de-static helper pointers |
| Evgeniy Polyakov | Re: [BUG] New Kernel Bugs |
