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

From: Greg KH (gregat_private)
Date: Sun Apr 22 2001 - 10:20:16 PDT

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

    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 :)
    
    To get specific, do you see any problems in the currently proposed code
    that I posted with the interface?
    
    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.
    
    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 - 13:54:43 PDT