Greg KH wrote:
quoted text
> 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.

These numbers are average values of 20 runs of each test. I didn't
provide the measurement accuracy, but the abs(open.sec - open.nosec)
is greater than it.

quoted text
>> 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 :)

OK :) Thanks for your time, Greg.

So, Serge, since you already have a LSM-based version, maybe you can
change it with the proposed "fix" and send it to LSM maintainers for
review?

quoted text
> good luck,
> 
> greg k-h
> 

--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/