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? 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 : Thu Oct 17 2002 - 15:11:25 PDT