re: syscall numbers

About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view Attachment view

From: Rik van Riel (
Date: Mon Oct 22 2001 - 12:24:11 EDT

On Sun, 21 Oct 2001, Jacques Gelinas wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Oct 2001 15:27:37 -0500, Rik van Riel wrote

> > However, the system call numbers your patch uses (222 and 223)
> > are already taken by TUX and LSM. I think it would be better
> > to ask Linus for one or two system calls to be reserved for
> > your project.
> Yes I was aware of that. I started in 2.4.9 and then I saw the
> problem in 2.4.10. I tought it was a little soon to reserve the
> syscall number as this project is still young. Maybe it does not
> matter and Linus will grant those entries.

The project is useful _now_, it would be really nice if
it could get some syscall numbers reserved ...

> > Other than that, I think I'll try it. If there are any major
> > TODO items left, let me know and maybe I can implement some.

> The other flag impact the schedular. The priority of a process
> in a security context is controlled by the activity of all
> processes in the same security context. This produced some sort
> of fairness between the vservers. The first flag (lock) takes
> its importance here.

> So we could have a "per security context" ulimit.

> What do you think ? I believe you have much experience on this
> side of the kernel.

I'm in. I'm willing and able to implement per-vserver
scheduling fairness within not too much time, the other
issues will take a bit longer, but I'm willing to help
with them or, as time allows, implement them.

Count me in.



DMCA, SSSCA, W3C?  Who cares?  (volunteers needed)

About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view Attachment view

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Aug 19 2002 - 12:01:00 EDT