[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080311173646.GA26931@kroah.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 10:36:46 -0700
From: Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
To: Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...nvz.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, menage@...gle.com,
sukadev@...ibm.com, serue@...ibm.com,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/9] Make use of permissions, returned by kobj_lookup
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 12:57:55PM +0300, Pavel Emelyanov wrote:
>
> Besides, I've measured some things - the lat_syscall test for open from
> lmbench test suite and the nptl perf test. Here are the results:
>
> sec nosec
> open 3.0980s 3.0709s
> nptl 2.7746s 2.7710s
>
> So we have 0.88% loss in open and ~0.15% with nptl. I know, this is not that
> much, but it is noticeable. Besides, this is only two tests, digging deeper
> may reveal more.
I think that is in the noise of sampling if you run that test many more
times.
> Let alone the fact that simply turning the CONFIG_SECURITY to 'y' puts +8Kb
> to the vmlinux...
>
> I think, I finally agree with you and Al Viro, that the kobj mapper is
> not the right place to put the filtering, but taking the above numbers
> into account, can we put the "hooks" into the #else /* CONFIG_SECURITY */
> versions of security_inode_permission/security_file_permission/etc?
Ask the security module interface maintainers about this, not me :)
good luck,
greg k-h
--
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