[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070719172420.GA5914@lisa.in-ulm.de>
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 19:24:20 +0200
From: Christian Ehrhardt <lk@...e.de>
To: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
Cc: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
Christian Ehrhardt <lk@...e.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
Chris Wright <chrisw@...s-sol.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>,
"Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH try #3] security: Convert LSM into a static interface
On Thu, Jul 19, 2007 at 09:54:30AM -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> the next step after this patch is to have an option to get rid of all
> the function pointer chasing (which is expensive) for the case where you
> know you only want one security module (which you then can turn on or
> off)... that advantage is a performance gain for a lot of people....
I'm pretty sure that at least the security_ops function pointers could be
resolved statically with some proprocessor trickery right now.
E.g. define macros for the security_* hooks in the single security module that
is configured statically and include those defines in security.h instead
of the prototypes for the inline functions. Am I missing something?
If a distribution enables such an option there is no way to load a
security module, true. This is what we have right now if the distro disables
loadable module support or disables security modules.
regards Christian
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (190 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists