Hi!
I'm a bit late to the party...
> Example:
> Imagine a receiver with a limit of 1024 handles. A sender transmits a
> message to that receiver. It gets access to half the limit not used by
> anyone else, hence 512 handles. It does not matter how many senders
> there are, nor how many messages
Hi!
I'm a bit late to the party...
> Example:
> Imagine a receiver with a limit of 1024 handles. A sender transmits a
> message to that receiver. It gets access to half the limit not used by
> anyone else, hence 512 handles. It does not matter how many senders
> there are, nor how many messages
Hi
On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 2:45 AM, Kirill A. Shutemov
wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 10:34:30PM +0200, David Herrmann wrote:
>> Long story short: We have uid<->uid quotas so far, which prevent DoS
>> attacks, unless you get access to a ridiculous amount of local UIDs.
>>
Hi
On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 2:45 AM, Kirill A. Shutemov
wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 10:34:30PM +0200, David Herrmann wrote:
>> Long story short: We have uid<->uid quotas so far, which prevent DoS
>> attacks, unless you get access to a ridiculous amount of local UIDs.
>> Details on which
On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 03:45:24AM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 10:34:30PM +0200, David Herrmann wrote:
> > Long story short: We have uid<->uid quotas so far, which prevent DoS
> > attacks, unless you get access to a ridiculous amount of local UIDs.
> > Details on
On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 03:45:24AM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 10:34:30PM +0200, David Herrmann wrote:
> > Long story short: We have uid<->uid quotas so far, which prevent DoS
> > attacks, unless you get access to a ridiculous amount of local UIDs.
> > Details on
On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 10:34:30PM +0200, David Herrmann wrote:
> Long story short: We have uid<->uid quotas so far, which prevent DoS
> attacks, unless you get access to a ridiculous amount of local UIDs.
> Details on which resources are accounted can be found in the wiki [1].
Does only root
On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 10:34:30PM +0200, David Herrmann wrote:
> Long story short: We have uid<->uid quotas so far, which prevent DoS
> attacks, unless you get access to a ridiculous amount of local UIDs.
> Details on which resources are accounted can be found in the wiki [1].
Does only root
On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 3:11 PM, Richard Weinberger
wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 9:17 PM, David Herrmann wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> This proposal introduces bus1.ko, a kernel messaging bus. This is not a
>> request
>> for inclusion, yet. It is
On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 3:11 PM, Richard Weinberger
wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 9:17 PM, David Herrmann wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> This proposal introduces bus1.ko, a kernel messaging bus. This is not a
>> request
>> for inclusion, yet. It is rather an initial draft and a Request For Comments.
>>
On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 9:17 PM, David Herrmann wrote:
> Hi
>
> This proposal introduces bus1.ko, a kernel messaging bus. This is not a
> request
> for inclusion, yet. It is rather an initial draft and a Request For Comments.
>
> While bus1 emerged out of the kdbus
On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 9:17 PM, David Herrmann wrote:
> Hi
>
> This proposal introduces bus1.ko, a kernel messaging bus. This is not a
> request
> for inclusion, yet. It is rather an initial draft and a Request For Comments.
>
> While bus1 emerged out of the kdbus project, bus1 was started from
[CC += linuux-api]@vger.kernel.org
Hi David,
Could you please CC linux-api@ on all future iterations of this patch!
Cheers,
Michael
On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 9:17 PM, David Herrmann wrote:
> Hi
>
> This proposal introduces bus1.ko, a kernel messaging bus. This is not a
[CC += linuux-api]@vger.kernel.org
Hi David,
Could you please CC linux-api@ on all future iterations of this patch!
Cheers,
Michael
On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 9:17 PM, David Herrmann wrote:
> Hi
>
> This proposal introduces bus1.ko, a kernel messaging bus. This is not a
> request
> for
Hi
On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 9:39 PM, Linus Torvalds
wrote:
> So the thing that tends to worry me about these is resource management.
>
> If I understood the documentation correctly, this has per-user
> resource management, which guarantees that at least the system
Hi
On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 9:39 PM, Linus Torvalds
wrote:
> So the thing that tends to worry me about these is resource management.
>
> If I understood the documentation correctly, this has per-user
> resource management, which guarantees that at least the system won't
> run out of memory. Good.
So the thing that tends to worry me about these is resource management.
If I understood the documentation correctly, this has per-user
resource management, which guarantees that at least the system won't
run out of memory. Good. The act of sending a message transfers the
resource to the receiver
So the thing that tends to worry me about these is resource management.
If I understood the documentation correctly, this has per-user
resource management, which guarantees that at least the system won't
run out of memory. Good. The act of sending a message transfers the
resource to the receiver
Hi
This proposal introduces bus1.ko, a kernel messaging bus. This is not a request
for inclusion, yet. It is rather an initial draft and a Request For Comments.
While bus1 emerged out of the kdbus project, bus1 was started from scratch and
the concepts have little in common. In a nutshell, bus1
Hi
This proposal introduces bus1.ko, a kernel messaging bus. This is not a request
for inclusion, yet. It is rather an initial draft and a Request For Comments.
While bus1 emerged out of the kdbus project, bus1 was started from scratch and
the concepts have little in common. In a nutshell, bus1
20 matches
Mail list logo