More efficient?

Posted Jun 7, 2025 0:41 UTC (Sat) by Nahor (subscriber, #51583)
In reply to: More efficient? by bluca
Parent article: Slowing the flow of core-dump-related CVEs

>> If your crash manager already has a persistent process, like systemd does
>
> It doesn't

Uh? Systemd has a persistent process, it's called "systemd" daemon, aka "init", aka PID 1. What do you think monitors the various systemd units, including sockets?

More efficient?

Posted Jun 7, 2025 11:46 UTC (Sat) by bluca (subscriber, #118303) [Link] (2 responses)

Oh, really? I had no idea! /s

It's not an _extra_ one as you implied. There's no extra cost, it's already there for other purposes.

More efficient?

Posted Jun 9, 2025 10:04 UTC (Mon) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link] (1 responses)

Every additional feature/thing that systemd has to watch for consumes another little bit of memory though, and probably another thing that sits in a list or other DS that has to be scanned through regularly.

Worth it, for me I'd say yes, and I doubt anyone could notice that 1 additional feature, but you can't dismiss the argument others have on the basis there are no extra resources used.

More efficient?

Posted Jun 9, 2025 10:48 UTC (Mon) by bluca (subscriber, #118303) [Link]

Once again: there are no extra resources used. There is already a systemd-coredump.socket, and there always was, as it's trivial to verify.

With this feature it's now kernel -> socket, instead of kernel -> usermode helper -> socket.