* Seth Arnold (sarnoldat_private) wrote: > On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 10:34:30PM -0500, Valdis.Kletnieksat_private wrote: > > We recently had a rework of the LSM code such that it added zero executable > > unless you asked for LSM in the .config. Would Linus be more receptive > > if audit was similarly implemented? > > Performance isn't everything. I've heard a bit of reluctance on the > part of kernel maintainers for the existing LSM hooks; adding dozens of > new hooks for auditing purposes is a significant amount of new source, > even if none of it ever makes it to the standard user's compiled kernel. I agree. It's not just runtime overhead that's a concern, but also source code maintainability. thanks, -chris -- Linux Security Modules http://lsm.immunix.org http://lsm.bkbits.net _______________________________________________ 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 Jan 29 2003 - 22:41:21 PST