[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070628024822.GA11276@sergelap.austin.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 21:48:22 -0500
From: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com>
To: James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>
Cc: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com>,
Kyle Moffett <mrmacman_g4@....com>,
Andreas Gruenbacher <agruen@...e.de>,
Chris Wright <chrisw@...s-sol.org>,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morgan <agm@...gle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...gle.com>,
Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>, Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH try #2] security: Convert LSM into a static interface
Quoting James Morris (jmorris@...ei.org):
> On Wed, 27 Jun 2007, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
>
> > Patch tests fine for me for expected capability behavior with lsm=n,
> > lsm=y, lsm=y+capability=y, lsm=y+selinux=y, and lsm=y+caps=y+selinux=y.
> >
> > So while I'm opposed to the patch, it appears to be safe.
>
> I've also tested a bunch of scenarios: allmodconfig, lsm=y,cap=n,
> selinux=y,cap=n etc.
I was wondering about the uninlining of all those functions, so did a
set of performance runs. Found no statistically relevant change in
dbench, tbench, or reaim. (tried to run kernbench too but the benchmark
failed somewhere and i didn't care enough to look into it)
-serge
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists