[lkml]   [2007]   [Oct]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] Version 3 (2.6.23-rc8) Smack: Simplified Mandatory Access Control Kernel

    On Tue, 2 Oct 2007, Bill Davidsen wrote:
    > And yet you can make the exact same case for schedulers as security, you can
    > quantify the behavior, but if your only choice is A it doesn't help to know
    > that B is better.

    You snipped a key part of the argument. Namely:

    Another difference is that when it comes to schedulers, I feel like I
    actually can make an informed decision. Which means that I'm perfectly
    happy to just make that decision, and take the flak that I get for it. And
    I do (both decide, and get flak). That's my job.

    which you seem to not have read or understood (neither did apparently
    anybody on slashdot).

    > You say "performance" as if it had universal meaning.

    Blah. Bogus and pointless argument removed.

    When it comes to schedulers, "performance" *is* pretty damn well-defined,
    and has effectively universal meaning.

    The arguments that "servers" have a different profile than "desktop" is
    pure and utter garbage, and is perpetuated by people who don't know what
    they are talking about. The whole notion of "server" and "desktop"
    scheduling being different is nothing but crap.

    I don't know who came up with it, or why people continue to feed the
    insane ideas. Why do people think that servers don't care about latency?
    Why do people believe that desktop doesn't have multiple processors or
    through-put intensive loads? Why are people continuing this *idiotic*
    scheduler discussion?

    Really - not only is the whole "desktop scheduler" argument totally bogus
    to begin with (and only brought up by people who either don't know
    anything about it, or who just want to argue, regardless of whether the
    argumen is valid or not), quite frankly, when you say that it's the "same
    issue" as with security models, you're simply FULL OF SH*T.

    The issue with LSM is that security people simply cannot even agree on the
    model. It has nothing to do with performance. It's about management, and
    it's about totally different models. Have you even *looked* at the
    differences between AppArmor and SELinux? Did you look at SMACK? They are
    all done by people who are interested in security, but have totally
    different notions of what "security" even *IS*ALL*ABOUT.

    In contrast, anybody who claims that the CPU scheduler doesn't know what
    it's all about is just tripping. And anybody who claims that desktop
    workloads are so radically different from server workloads (or that the
    hardware is so different) is just totally out to lunch.

    So next time, think five minutes before you start your argument.

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2007-10-02 23:23    [W:0.022 / U:14.884 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site