--- Lorenzo Hernández García-Hierro <lorenzo@private> wrote: > ... but think it's main > shortcoming is that it cuts > performance Ya'know, I keep hearing this assertion, but the evidence of actual system implementations that have been measured to determine this "performance impact" is that there is no difference except in contrived cases. In contrived cases the performance is better if you do the "special" checks first. > and adds further overlapping to the DAC > checks, that should > be the first ones being called (as most times they > do) and then apply > the LSM basis, so, post-processing will be only > required if the DAC > checks get in override or passed, without adding > too-much overhead to > the current behavior. No. There are a number of reasons, including audit and nearline storage issues that make it important to do the special checks first. Some access control schemes may not work if the Classic DAC check is done first. > So, I just agree partially, but yes, maybe modifying > the DAC checks > themselves and add what-ever-else helper function to > handle by-default > auditing in certain operations could be interesting. I remain a advocate of authoritative hooks. > I think it could be worthy to have a roadmap in a > wiki or even talk > about a one, trying to write it, so, we all could > know what needs to be > improved and done, getting a higher percentage of > mainline-accepted > approaches. Sigh. ===== Casey Schaufler casey@schaufler-ca.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Wed Feb 16 2005 - 08:07:32 PST