On Fri, 1 Sep 2000, Alan Cox wrote:
> >
> > No, it would be another "clone" option.
>
> You dont want it in kernel space.
Oh, I basically agree, _except_ that Al Viro has these ideas pending for
2.5.x that basically create a "process capability cache" that is a cache
of all the process ID's and capabilities (ie uid, gid, groups etc). Which
would be this copy-on-write thing.
And that may end up mixing well with a "CLONE_CAPABILITIES" flag.
Which is not to say that this will necessarily get done. But other changes
may make it an option. I was just saying that if done that way, it would
be a CLONE_xxxx flag instead of "we will use the thread leaders ID" thing.
> Its also very rare and not a performance case to push into glibc
Yes. For 2.4.x, I'd love to fix anything that can be used to show real
performance bugs. Something like "setuid() is slow when I run it threaded
is not a real issue". Something like "pthreads is faster under NT than
under Linux" _would_ be a real issue.
Linus
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
