Re: [RFC] [PATCH] Replace security fields with hashtable

From: Serge E. Hallyn (hallyn@private)
Date: Wed Oct 27 2004 - 06:18:15 PDT

> Did you ever try the hybrid approach suggested in
> Two statically allocated entries for primary and secondary module, then
> voluntary chaining using a common header (possibly embedded).  That
> seems like a more promising approach to me than the hashtable.


> > Do you have anything in mind for how to optimize for one LSM?
> By avoiding any change from the current situation when there is only one
> LSM.  


No, I have not tried the hybrid approach James suggested.  I'm certainly
not opposed to that, but does anyone think (as I my feeling was) that
such a thing would be rejected?  It seemed clear to me that providing a
hashtable would mean the ->security fields would be ripped out.


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Wed Oct 27 2004 - 06:18:41 PDT