lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Dec]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH (mmotm-2008-12-02-17-08)] Introducesecurity_path_set/clear() hooks.
From
Date
Hello.

Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> > Right. Locations of inserting security_path_set()/security_path_clear() pairs
> > are subset of mnt_want_write()/mnt_drop_write() pairs. Thus, we can insert
> > security_path_set()/security_path_clear() pairs into
> > mnt_want_write()/mnt_drop_write() pairs, if we can tolerate performance
> > regression. According to our rough measurement, there is about 8 - 22% of
> > performance regression.
>
> ... compared to what, exactly?
>
> If having CONFIG_SECURITY_PATH=y but TOMOYO disabled has this kind of
> regression against just not having CONFIG_SECURITY_PATH, then no that is
> not acceptable.
>
Comparison between a module using mnt_path.c and a module not using mnt_path.c .
If mp_update_mnt_path() is not called, there is no performance regression.
TOMOYO will need mp_update_mnt_path().

Regards.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-12-04 22:45    [W:0.258 / U:0.040 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site