On Thu, 2006-04-20 at 08:48 -0400, Stephen Smalley wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-04-20 at 08:21 -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> > Tony, do you have any performance measurements? Both for unconfined and
> > confined apps? Presumably unconfined processes should have 0 performance
> > hit, right?
>
> Preferably something that exercises open, mkdir, link... and friends
> intensively, not just the old WebStone data that I've seen posted
> before.
>
> But you don't really need the benchmarks - just look at the code, and
> think about the implications of allocating a page and calling d_path on
> every permission(9) call (on every component) plus from the separate
> hooks in the vfs_ helpers and further consider the impact of taking the
> dcache lock all the time there. And look at the iterators being used in
> aa_perm_dentry as well as the truly fun ones in aa_link. All because
> they are doing it from LSM hooks that were never intended to be used
> this way.
Ah, I have to correct the above - the mask filtering skips directory
traversal checking, so not every component I suppose. Which is
interesting for another reason. But performance situation still looks
fairly bad from a code POV, and the existing hooks still seem to be the
wrong place for this kind of processing/checking.
--
Stephen Smalley
National Security Agency
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
