* James Morris (jmorris@private) wrote: > 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? Certainly. Only tradeoff is per-object overhead, but anything with lists and id/keys could be traded for an array of 4 or 5 for free, plus no locking, etc. It does mean the core has to cycle through the module callbacks. > 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. I think it'd have to be compile time, not boot time. I'm not that wild about making it configurable though. thanks, -chris -- Linux Security Modules http://lsm.immunix.org http://lsm.bkbits.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Wed Oct 27 2004 - 10:00:10 PDT