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

jmjonesat_private

On Sun, 22 Apr 2001, Greg KH wrote:

> On Sun, Apr 22, 2001 at 01:15:33PM -0400, jmjonesat_private wrote:
> > 
> > I agree, but I think we should discuss "standard" levels of indirection.
> > Build the basic structure in such a way that we could provide other
> > interfaces that would impose greater overhead to support modules that are
> > at a "higher (different?)" level of abstraction.
> > 
> > Build a "low-level" interface that imposes minimal overhead, then stack
> > a few "higher level" standard functions on top of that.  A loadable
> > security module SHOULD be as easy to implement as we can manage (er, you
> > can manage) to be as generally useful as possible.
> 
> Hm, that sounds nice and vague.  I too believe in Mom and apple pie :)

Mom, apple pie, baseball, and USABILITY from a human aspect are
important.  If only a handful of geeks (no insult intended, i proudly 
declare MYSELF a "geek" (albeit a lesser one)) can implement a module,
that's a pretty poor interface.

> 
> To get specific, do you see any problems in the currently proposed code
> that I posted with the interface?

Not yet, but I'm working on it.  It's pretty good (imho) right now for 
a "Level I" interface... although I'm still tracing out the code. 

While I *understand* that "the code is the thing" right now, comments on 
if it works are meaningless unless we discuss "what it SHOULD 
do."  Sorry, but you can build a PERFECT square, and it will still never
fit a round hole.

> 
> I do, but I've already pointed out that the second pointer dereference
> will be going away for the final implementation due to the speed issues.
> 

Good.  You're a good coder.  You evaluate your own output for flaws.
That's a sign of high intelligence and good moral character.  Am I
the ONLY one still interested in discussing WHY code SHOULD do, instead
of HOW?

> thanks,
> 
> greg k-h
> 

Thanks, likewise,
J. Melvin Jones

> _______________________________________________
> linux-security-module mailing list
> linux-security-moduleat_private
> http://mail.wirex.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-security-module
> 

P.S. -- This is NOT intended as a flame.  I think greg k-h has 
done WONDERFUL work, but I still think there're things to be considered
if Greg's work is to get the final "stamp of approval."  Sorry, Greg.

|>------------------------------------------------------
||  J. MELVIN JONES            jmjonesat_private 
|>------------------------------------------------------
||  Microcomputer Systems Consultant  
||  Software Developer
||  Web Site Design, Hosting, and Administration
||  Network and Systems Administration
|>------------------------------------------------------
||  http://www.jmjones.com/
|>------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
linux-security-module mailing list
linux-security-moduleat_private
http://mail.wirex.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-security-module