Quoting Arjan van de Ven ([email protected]): > > > > > :) > > > > Actually, given that when lsm was being introduced, lsm seemed to > > improve performance overall, have you taken any measurements to show > > that this is actually the case? Of course it makes sense that it would, > > but witjout measurements we do not know. > > SuSE did a bunch of measurement I think a year ago and they showed a > several percent performance increase with a hack similar to the proposed > next step.. Very good. -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 #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]>
- 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] AFS: Use patched rxrpc_kernel_send_data() correctly
- Next by Date: Re: [patch] sched: implement cpu_clock(cpu) high-speed time source, take #2
- 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):
 |