Re: [PATCH try #2] security: Convert LSM into a static interface

Quoting James Morris ([email protected]):
> 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 [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

---

• References:
  • [PATCH try #2] security: Convert LSM into a static interface
    • From: James Morris <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH try #2] security: Convert LSM into a static interface
    • From: Andreas Gruenbacher <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH try #2] security: Convert LSM into a static interface
    • From: Kyle Moffett <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH try #2] security: Convert LSM into a static interface
    • From: "Serge E. Hallyn" <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH try #2] security: Convert LSM into a static interface
    • From: Kyle Moffett <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH try #2] security: Convert LSM into a static interface
    • From: "Serge E. Hallyn" <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH try #2] security: Convert LSM into a static interface
    • From: James Morris <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH try #2] security: Convert LSM into a static interface
    • From: "Serge E. Hallyn" <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH try #2] security: Convert LSM into a static interface
    • From: "Serge E. Hallyn" <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH try #2] security: Convert LSM into a static interface
    • From: James Morris <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [RFC] fsblock
• Next by Date: Re: how about mutual compatibility between Linux's GPLv2 and GPLv3?
• Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH try #2] security: Convert LSM into a static interface
• Next by thread: Re: [PATCH][RFC] security: Convert LSM into a static interface
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[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]