> >No, hooks are not allowed to sleep :) Some might be, but you'd have to
> >determine exactly which, and I decided it wasn't worth splitting up the
> >hooks that way. At least not yet.
>
> Is that really so? That really limits the functionality one can implement
> by using LSM hooks!
Oh, no! Many hooks are allowed to sleep. I actually wanted to say that
you can't assume they *won't* sleep, which is why you can't just do a
simple
rcu_read_lock();
list_for_each_entry_rcu() {call all hooks};
rcu_read_unlock();
as it sounds like you've found. But my approach performed pretty well on
lmbench on a 4-way smp system, doing something like
rcu_read_lock();
list_for_each_entry_rcu() {
increment m->ref_count;
rcu_read_unlock();
call m->hook();
rcu_read_lock();
decrement m->ref_count and free if necessary;
}
rcu_read_unlock();
What is the reason why the stacker on www.sf.net/projects/lsm-stacker does
not suffice?
-serge
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Wed Dec 22 2004 - 10:31:48 PST