From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262836AbUBZUKV (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Feb 2004 15:10:21 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262972AbUBZUKV (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Feb 2004 15:10:21 -0500 Received: from prgy-npn1.prodigy.com ([207.115.54.37]:38275 "EHLO oddball.prodigy.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262836AbUBZUKQ (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Feb 2004 15:10:16 -0500 Message-ID: <403E53C3.9090106@tmr.com> Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 15:14:59 -0500 From: Bill Davidsen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.6b) Gecko/20031208 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mike Fedyk CC: Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] O(1) Entitlement Based Scheduler References: <1tfy0-7ly-29@gated-at.bofh.it> <1thzJ-A5-13@gated-at.bofh.it> <1tjrN-2m5-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <1tjLa-2Ab-9@gated-at.bofh.it> <1tlaf-3OY-11@gated-at.bofh.it> <1tljX-3Wf-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <1tznd-CP-35@gated-at.bofh.it> <1tzQe-10s-25@gated-at.bofh.it> In-Reply-To: <1tzQe-10s-25@gated-at.bofh.it> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Mike Fedyk wrote: > Shailabh Nagar wrote: > >>>> Mike Fedyk wrote: >>>> >>>>> Better would be to have the kernel tell the daemon whenever a >>>>> process in exec-ed, and you have simplicity in the kernel, and >>>>> policy in user space. >> >> >> >> >> As it turns out, one can still use a fairly simple in-kernel module >> which provides a *mechanism* for effectively changing a process' >> entitlement while retaining the policy component in userland. > > > How much code could be removed if CKRM triggered a userspace process to > perform the operations required? One other interesting question is what would happen if the userspace program didn't run, died, etc. Or set some ill-behaved other user program to a higher priority and the other program did a DoS (intentional or not)? I don't like the whole idea, but I like it even less with a user program requiring context switches on scheduling.