From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262610AbTJJU7Z (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Oct 2003 16:59:25 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262671AbTJJU7Z (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Oct 2003 16:59:25 -0400 Received: from [217.172.69.25] ([217.172.69.25]:13972 "EHLO falafell.ghetto") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262610AbTJJU7X (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Oct 2003 16:59:23 -0400 Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 22:59:05 +0200 To: =?iso-8859-1?B?R+Fib3IgTOlu4XJ0?= Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: 2.7 thoughts Message-ID: <20031010205905.GA1601@81.38.200.176> Reply-To: piotr@member.fsf.org References: <20031009115809.GE8370@vega.digitel2002.hu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20031009115809.GE8370@vega.digitel2002.hu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i From: Pedro Larroy Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Oct 09, 2003 at 01:58:09PM +0200, Gábor Lénárt wrote: > On Thu, Oct 09, 2003 at 10:08:00AM +0200, Frederick, Fabian wrote: > > Hi, > > Some thoughts for 2.7.Someone has other ideas, comments ? > [...] > > * All this guides me to a more global conclusion in which all that > > stuff should be kobject registration relevant > > * Meanwhile, we don't have a kobject <-> security bridge :( > > well, maybe stupid ideas, but they're which supported on other unix like > system(s) or it would be very nice according to my experiences: > > * bind mount support for all general mount options (nodev,ro,noexec etc) > with SECURE implementation with any (maybe even future) filesystems? > * union mount (possible with option to declare on what fs a new file > should be created: on fixed ones, random algorithm, on fs with the > largest free space available etc ...) > * guaranteed i/o bandwidth allocation? > * netfilter's ability to do tricks which OpenBSD can do now with its > packet filter Can you describe those please? > * ENBD support in official kernel with enterprise-class 'through the > network' volume management > * more and more tunable kernel parameters to be able to have some user > space program which can 'tune' the system for the current load,usage,etc > of the server ("selftune") > * more configuration options to be able to use Linux at the low end as well > (current kernels are too complex, too huge and sometimes contains too > many unwanted features for a simple system, though for most times it is > enough but can be even better) Maybe hardware detection -> automatic kernel configuration maker > * maybe some 'official in the kernel' general framework to implement > virtual machines without the need to load third party kernel modeles > from vmware, plex86 etc ... > Regards. -- Pedro Larroy Tovar | piotr%member.fsf.org Software patents are a threat to innovation in Europe please check: http://www.eurolinux.org/