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
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
- References:
- [PATCH try #3] security: Convert LSM into a static interface
- From: James Morris <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH try #3] security: Convert LSM into a static interface
- From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH try #3] security: Convert LSM into a static interface
- From: Christian Ehrhardt <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH try #3] security: Convert LSM into a static interface
- From: "Serge E. Hallyn" <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH try #3] security: Convert LSM into a static interface
- From: Arjan van de Ven <[email protected]>
- [PATCH try #3] security: Convert LSM into a static interface
- Prev by Date: [PATCH 3/4] serial: MPSC: Remove duplicate SUPPORT_SYSRQ definition
- Next by Date: Re: lguest, Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23
- Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH try #3] security: Convert LSM into a static interface
- Next by thread: Re: [PATCH try #3] security: Convert LSM into a static interface
- Index(es):