Re: lmbench for LSM coverage

From: Seth Arnold (sarnoldat_private)
Date: Wed Oct 31 2001 - 09:08:23 PST

  • Next message: Crispin Cowan: "Re: Authoritative hooks updated to 2.4.13"

    On Wed, Oct 31, 2001 at 10:41:37AM -0500, Trent Jaeger wrote:
    > [...]  and we found that less than 20% of the LSM security hooks are
    > actually invoked by lmbench. [...]
    
    Wow. I had no idea that the coverage would be so slim with such a
    widely-respected benchmark. Thanks for looking at this. :)
    
    > For the time being we have pushed the coverage benchmark problem on the
    > stack.  If any of you have any ideas, we would appreciate them.
    
    Trent, I tend to suggest kernel compiles as a macro benchmark: most
    folks know how a kernel compile ought to handle on their setup, and
    seeing a 0%, 1%, 5%, slowdown with a kernel compile is vaguely useful,
    at least for folks who spend their days compiling. :)
    
    If your testbed is setup to easily check coverage, I know I'd be curious
    to hear what percentage of LSM hooks are invoked with a kernel compile. :)
    
    Thanks :)
    
    -- 
    The Bill of Rights: 7 out of 10 rights haven't been sold yet! Contact
    your congressman for details how *you* can buy one today!
    
    _______________________________________________
    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 : Wed Oct 31 2001 - 09:09:30 PST