Re: Willing to change LSM so secondary defaults correct

From: Greg KH (gregat_private)
Date: Fri Dec 27 2002 - 14:32:20 PST

  • Next message: Greg KH: "Re: Willing to change LSM so secondary defaults correct"

    On Fri, Dec 27, 2002 at 10:45:16AM -0500, David Wheeler wrote:
    > 
    > I guess a simple benchmark is the "untar and recompile the kernel"
    > benchmark.  I can run the benchmark (1) with OWLSM as the primary
    > (which embeds capability), and (2) using stacker, and with two
    > secondaries (OWLSM patched + capability).  That should be
    > a pretty fair test to show what the overhead is.
    
    A better benchmark is lmbench for micro results and the contest test for
    macro ones:
    	http://members.optusnet.com.au/ckolivas/contest/
    which a lot of people are using these days to test out mm changes to the
    kernel.
    
    Hope this helps,
    
    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 : Fri Dec 27 2002 - 15:42:08 PST