On 30 Mar 2000 22:34:29 +0200, Peter T. Breuer <ptb@it.uc3m.es> wrote:
>I'd start init and cron as secure jobs. I can't think of anything else
>that needs to be secure. Practically speaking, init in itself is enough
>(I run cron from init, and cron checks and revives other daemons).
<SNIP>
>I.e. you'd only get thrashing if every process on your system was
>running as a secure process, and ram+swap were full. Just like now.
>Indeed, the only change I propose is an accounting change and the only
>effect it has is in saying when certain processes can _start up_ (or if
>they can). So it has no effect on the characteristics of the system
>with respect to those processes already running. Your system would
>behave just as it does now. It would just be more secure :-).
Peter & other pro-non-overcommit, I have a great suggestion (no flames
please).
Why don't you just open mailing list for discussion on that subject, and go
ahead with coding it! When you are done, come back and share it here. You'll
gain many followers, and when those who are still against idea will say "but
it must surely die when I do xxx" you can answer with easy "Go ahead and try
it. The patch is here."
It worked nice for GGI folks.
-- Opinions above are GNU-copylefted.- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Apr 07 2000 - 21:00:07 EST