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

From: Chris Wright (chrisw@private)
Date: Wed Oct 27 2004 - 11:39:55 PDT

* Serge E. Hallyn (hallyn@private) wrote:
> I didn't include performance numbers this time because 2.6.9 by
> itself performs significantly worse than the I used for
> the other approach.  However, a previous prototype which I tested

Hrm, that's no good.  Does that regression improve on -current?

> under came out a little better than the chaining approach,
> and worse than the builtin approach.
> I'm working on the improved chaining design which Stephen pointed
> out I wasn't doing last time.  Perhaps actually embedding the
> list_head into the LSM security structures will bring its performance
> above the hashing approach.

I missed that the last chaining one wasn't this way.  Perhaps that's
where the overhead came from.  It should be faster, esp for a short list.
The memory footprint should be one extra pointer per kernel object
(or none if hlist), and 2 pointers plus id per security blob.

Linux Security Modules

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Wed Oct 27 2004 - 11:40:10 PDT