[lkml]   [2005]   [Feb]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] 4/5: LSM hooks rework
Hi Rik,

On Mon, Feb 14, 2005 at 11:54:07AM -0500, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Feb 2005, Kurt Garloff wrote:
> >The case that security_ops points to the default capability_
> >security_ops is the fast path and arguably the more likely one
> >on most systems.
> Quite a few distributions ship with other security modules
> enabled by default, so I'm not sure we should add a "likely"
> here - let the CPU's branch prediction sort things out.

Fine with me. I had the fast path in mind, but with some
luck, CPU branch prediction will work for us.

I sent out the full patch set, which moves the code from
vanilla to the code we've been shipping since 7 months.
And I made the changes in the order to make the ones that I
expect the least controversial come first.

If we can't find consensus for patches 4 and 5, I'd still
think applying 1 -- 3 is useful.

Kurt Garloff, Director SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:10    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans