Re: [PATCH 0/5] LSM hook updates

From: Chris Wright (chrisw@private)
Date: Fri Aug 26 2005 - 09:41:40 PDT

Previous message: Tony Jones: "Re: [PATCH] remove selinux stacked ops"
In reply to: serue@private: "Re: [PATCH 0/5] LSM hook updates"
Next in thread: serue@private: "Re: [PATCH 0/5] LSM hook updates"
Next in thread: serue@private: "Re: [PATCH 0/5] LSM hook updates"
Reply: serue@private: "Re: [PATCH 0/5] LSM hook updates"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

* serue@private (serue@private) wrote:
> Here are some numbers on a 4way x86 - PIII 700Mhz with 1G memory (hmm,
> highmem not enabled).  I should hopefully have a 2way ppc available
> later today for a pair of runs.

Thanks for running these numbers Serge.

> dbench and tbench were run 50 times each, kernbench and reaim 10 times
> each.  Results are mean +/- 95% confidence half-interval.  Kernel had
> selinux and capabilities compiled in.
> 
> A little surprising: kernbench is improved, but dbench and tbench
> are worse - though within the 95% CI.

It is interesting.  Would be good to see what happens with the cap_ bits
used in SELinux instead of secondary callout.  Also, need to run ia64,
do you have an ia64 box?

thanks,
-chris

Previous message: Tony Jones: "Re: [PATCH] remove selinux stacked ops"
In reply to: serue@private: "Re: [PATCH 0/5] LSM hook updates"
Next in thread: serue@private: "Re: [PATCH 0/5] LSM hook updates"
Next in thread: serue@private: "Re: [PATCH 0/5] LSM hook updates"
Reply: serue@private: "Re: [PATCH 0/5] LSM hook updates"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 26 2005 - 09:42:06 PDT