lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Oct]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH] remove sys_security
From
   From: daw@mozart.cs.berkeley.edu (David Wagner)
Date: 17 Oct 2002 21:54:49 GMT

For example, the LSM folks have several performance
measurements that show that the performance overhead of LSM is
basically negligible, so that's one way that users won't notice it
is there.

How about size measurements? As in, the kernel is at a minimum
several Kb larger than if CONFIG_SECURITY=n

And about prospective usage of LSM, it can be judged even though it
isn't in the tree yet. That's how we decide what to put into the
kernel to begin with.

Look at your average user, he doesn't really care about LSM. He wants
to be able to play his music, play quake3, surf the web, write emails
and compose documents. If he's a developer he also wants to compile
programs and source management tools. If he's an artist or
professional photographer, he wants something like the GIMP.

Sure, it might become popular on multi-user machines to use
some sort of LSM module for this purpose or that.

But as far as raw seats are concerned, the majority will not use
LSM. They simply have no need for it on their workstation.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:30    [W:0.099 / U:6.428 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site