On Wed, 27 Oct 2004, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > I always liked the trusted bsd approach of an array inode->i_security[NUM_LSMS] > better. but this is more flexible than that, while hopefully faster and cleaner > than the purely voluntary chaining approach. I think you'll find there is some wisdom in the BSD code :-) Indexing an array is surely faster and cleaner than probing a hash chain? For flexibility, you could make the array size tunable at boot. How much do we really care about out of tree LSMs? And composing more than a very small number of LSMs could be unsafe in any case, so a small static array should be enough. > Do you have anything in mind for how to optimize for one LSM? There are ways to optimize hash chain traversal if you know there is only one entry, but I would imagine something better could be done. - James -- James Morris <jmorris@private>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Wed Oct 27 2004 - 07:43:56 PDT