Re: [PATCH] remove sys_security

From: Greg KH (gregat_private)
Date: Thu Oct 17 2002 - 15:09:57 PDT

  • Next message: Russell Coker: "Re: [PATCH] remove sys_security"

    On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 01:58:32PM -0700, David S. Miller wrote:
    >    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?
    I did not look at size, sorry.  I only looked at run-time performance.
    > 2.5.x is busting at the seams currently and CONFIG_SECURITY is part of
    > the reason why.
    With the patch I just sent, that size issue should be resolved.
    > 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. :-)
    I would love to implement it in such a manner.  Without using
    self-modifying code, do you have any ideas of how this could be done?
    greg k-h
    linux-security-module mailing list

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Oct 17 2002 - 15:11:25 PDT