Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 17 Oct 2002 15:36:27 -0700 (PDT) | Subject | Re: [PATCH] remove sys_security | From | "David S. Miller" <> |
| |
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/
| |