From owner-freebsd-hackers Fri May 10 12:25:29 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from fledge.watson.org (fledge.watson.org [204.156.12.50]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0478937B400; Fri, 10 May 2002 12:25:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fledge.watson.org (fledge.pr.watson.org [192.0.2.3]) by fledge.watson.org (8.12.3/8.12.3) with SMTP id g4AJOpb5094358; Fri, 10 May 2002 15:24:51 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from robert@fledge.watson.org) Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 15:24:50 -0400 (EDT) From: Robert Watson X-Sender: robert@fledge.watson.org To: Ramkumar Chinchani Cc: Terry Lambert , freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, arr@freebsd.org Subject: Re: kevent subsystem In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG This looks much more like a syslog/audit/... mechanism, and not really much like keven, which is about applications getting event notification on system objects. You might be interested in talking to Andrew Reiter about his work on the TrustedBSD audit framework, but otherwise I'm not really sure we have something like this in the works right now. Robert N M Watson FreeBSD Core Team, TrustedBSD Project robert@fledge.watson.org NAI Labs, Safeport Network Services On Fri, 10 May 2002, Ramkumar Chinchani wrote: > > I am asking more in terms of the posix event logging mechanism being > implemented in Linux 2.5.x kernel. > > http://evlog.sourceforge.net/ > > How does the kevent mechanism of event notification and handling compare > to this scheme? > > It appears to me that the Linux event logging merely supports logging of > events in a different way that already exists via klogd. This is a more > passive technique and requiring disk usage overheads in case of huge and > rapid audits. > > On the other hand, kevent allows more active event registering and > handling... > > What would be the pros and cons of both these techniques? > > Thanks. > > -Ram > > ==> Terry Lambert /11:23pm/May 9, 2002 <== > > [Ramkumar Chinchani wrote: > [> Has the POSIX event standard implemeted in FreeBSD? POSIX events are logged to > [> a file. Which would give a better performance, assuming kevent can register more > [> events? > [ > [Are you talking about POSIX persistent queueing, of the type not > [implemented by the POSIX printing model, based on Palladium out > [of Project Athena? > [ > [THat's more like a "Tuxedo" replacement, than anything else. It's > [not really comparable to kevent (IMO). > [ > [If you meant something else, you might want to ask a clearer question > [(i.e. give the standards information for the "event standard" you > [are talking about; there are so many to choose from, e.g. queued > [signal delivery, etc.). > [ > [-- Terry > [ > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message