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

From: Greg KH (gregat_private)
Date: Sun Apr 22 2001 - 10:00:40 PDT

  • Next message: jmjonesat_private: "Re: Benchmarks (was Re: Hooking into Linux using the LTT)"

    On Sat, Apr 21, 2001 at 01:10:22PM -0400, jmjonesat_private wrote:
    > 
    > Greg KH Wrote:
    > 
    > > Remember the LSM lives in kernel space along
    > > with the rest of the kernel, so it can touch any part of kernel memory
    > > that it wants to, even if we "hide" it.  Also any thing that implements
    > > this would cause the way to call the hooks to slow down.
    > 
    > Quite repectfully, isn't that in the domain of the module, not the
    > interface?  If the module adds value to the point the slow-down is 
    > worthwhile, why not let it?
    
    I the module causes things to slow down that's fine.  I don't want to
    impose artificial burdens on the interface that everyone has to accept.
    Attempting to hide the interface structure from the module would be such
    a burden (both in complexity and speed) and not be useful at all (can
    not work.)
    
    thanks,
    
    greg k-h
    
    _______________________________________________
    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 22 2001 - 13:38:12 PDT