Re: The Demise of Simple Assurance?

From: Seth Arnold (sarnoldat_private)
Date: Fri Aug 03 2001 - 10:53:00 PDT

  • Next message: Stephen Smalley: "Re: Making forward progress"

    On Fri, Aug 03, 2001 at 03:11:43AM +0000, David Wagner wrote:
    > Was this meant seriously?
    Absolutely. One will be faster than the other, usually.
    > I'm convinced this can't be the argument you had in mind for moving
    > all existing kernel checks to a module.  I must be missing something.
    > I hope you'll show me where I went wrong.
    Ah, I didn't keep enough context from previous posts to know that this
    was the reason behind the thread. I was just responding to the question
    you had asked about the speed differences between the two forms.
    No, I am not a fan of moving the current kernel checks out of the
    kernel, even if it may be able to save some group one or two cycles
    every now and then. :)
    I really must learn to pay more attention to the context of my
    linux-security-module mailing list

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Aug 03 2001 - 10:51:29 PDT