Re: [PATCH] remove sys_security

davemat_private

   From: Greg KH <gregat_private>
   Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 13:58:31 -0700

   I've run the numbers myself on OSDL machines, and seen that there is no
   measurable overhead for these functions.  Sure, there is an extra
   function call, and different assembler, I'll never contest that.  It's
   just that I could not measure it.

Did you look at the _code_?  Did you measure the size of even the
non security/*.o object code with/without the hooks?  What is the
added overhead?

2.5.x is busting at the seams currently and CONFIG_SECURITY is part of
the reason why.

   It is adding stuff to the kernel.  Now if you want to call it bloat,
   fine.  I like calling the USB stack bloat too, and it is bloat for
   people who don't use it.

There is a very important fundamental difference to the USB case.
It eats zero space in my kernel when I have no USB devices.
CONFIG_USB=m works as designed!

CONFIG_SECURITY=m still does not exist, so distribution makers have to
make a y vs. n choice.

   Argue with your favorite distro if they enable the option that they
   shouldn't do that, if they do, don't try to convince me.

I need to convince you to implement this in a way, so that like
USB, there is zero overhead when I enable it as a module. :-)

   And I know what my true calling in life is, but unfortunately there isn't
   much calling for a professional pan flute player :)

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