Re: Benchmarks (was Re: Hooking into Linux using the LTT)

From: \ (dclydewat_private)
Date: Sun Apr 15 2001 - 11:55:50 PDT

  • Next message: Kurt P. Hundeck: "Re: linux-security-module digest, Vol 1 #12 - 7 msgs"

    Has anyone began rudimentary documentation on the whole project? I'd
    love to have a single place to review options and or existing
    architecture bits (like benchmarks). If all we have is the mailing
    list, then perhaps it would be a good idea to start documenting out
    the good stuff for a weekly summary.
    
    
    
    
    
    Crispin Cowan writes:
     > "Anil B. Somayaji" wrote:
     > 
     > > Karim Yaghmour <karymat_private> writes:
     > > > But you'd be interested to know that adding the hooks within
     > > > the kernel yields at most 1% overhead over very heavy load.
     > > > With the case of a kernel compile, for example, the overhead
     > > > is around 0.25%.
     > > These results are quite good; however, I was wondering - was this for
     > > micro-benchmarks, or only macro ones?  In my own work, I've noticed
     > > that doubling the time a fork and exec takes only results in a few
     > > percent slowdown for kernel builds.
     > 
     > Acutally, I think 1% overhead at the macro level is very poor.  That's
     > the overhead for SubDomain with the security checks running in the worst
     > possible case.  If the basic LSM infrastructure costs 1%, then that's way
     > too much.
     > 
     > 
     > > But if we are to get anything incorporated into
     > > the main kernel tree, we have to show that our modifications have
     > > minimal impact on system call and interrupt latency.
     > 
     > Exactly.
     > 
     > 
     > > My hunch is that the LTT represents a rough lower-bound for the
     > > performance of a flexible security module interface.
     > 
     > I was thinking of LTT as an upper bound :-)
     > 
     > 
     > > I hope we can have a general interface (that would be very good for
     > > me, definitely), but I bring this up because I'm not that optimistic.
     > 
     > Instead of saying "lets do everything", why don't you specify what you
     > need?  And while you're at it, try to think about how to achieve what you
     > want with less intrusion into the kernel, and see how many of your
     > requirements can be lifted.
     > 
     > Crispin
     > 
     > --
     > Crispin Cowan, Ph.D.
     > Chief Scientist, WireX Communications, Inc. http://wirex.com
     > Security Hardened Linux Distribution:       http://immunix.org
     > 
     > 
     > _______________________________________________
     > linux-security-module mailing list
     > linux-security-moduleat_private
     > http://mail.wirex.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-security-module
    
    
    _______________________________________________
    linux-security-module mailing list
    linux-security-moduleat_private
    http://mail.wirex.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-security-module
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Apr 15 2001 - 12:59:03 PDT