- Original Message -
> On 02.12.2014 10:29, Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos wrote:
> > On Mon, 2014-11-10 at 11:41 +0100, Stef Walter wrote:
> >> On 03.11.2014 13:09, Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos wrote:
> >>> The attached patch allows to use p11-kit to run and use an isolated
> >>> PKCS #11 module. The
On 02.12.2014 10:29, Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-11-10 at 11:41 +0100, Stef Walter wrote:
>> On 03.11.2014 13:09, Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos wrote:
>>> The attached patch allows to use p11-kit to run and use an isolated
>>> PKCS #11 module. The performance cost seems to be quite limi
On Mon, 2014-11-10 at 11:41 +0100, Stef Walter wrote:
> On 03.11.2014 13:09, Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos wrote:
> > The attached patch allows to use p11-kit to run and use an isolated
> > PKCS #11 module. The performance cost seems to be quite limited.
> > I've tested it with softhsm (isolated) + light
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11.11.2014 10:36, Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-11-10 at 11:41 +0100, Stef Walter wrote:
>
>> +int p11_kit_server (int argc, +
>> char *argv[]); Because things like like SELinux and AppArmor
>> would want to treat the
On Mon, 2014-11-10 at 11:41 +0100, Stef Walter wrote:
> +int p11_kit_server (int argc,
> + char *argv[]);
> Because things like like SELinux and AppArmor would want to treat the
> server differently, we should make it run in a separate process. You
On 03.11.2014 13:09, Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos wrote:
> The attached patch allows to use p11-kit to run and use an isolated
> PKCS #11 module. The performance cost seems to be quite limited.
> I've tested it with softhsm (isolated) + lighttpd2 and a
> pseudo-benchmark (run in the same pc) shows:
Thi
