Re: [patch 0/15] lsm stacking v0.3: intro

[serue@us.ibm.com]

Thanks, James.  I'll give this a shot and send out performance results
this weekend or next week.

thanks,
-serge

Quoting James Morris (jmorris@redhat.com):
> On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 serue@us.ibm.com wrote:
> 
> > if interested in the performance results.  I am certainly interested in
> > ways to further speed up security_get_value.
> 
> What about having a small static array of security blob pointers for the 
> common case (e.g. SELinux + capabilities + perhaps something else), the 
> total number of which is compile-time configurable.  Reserve one pointer 
> at the end for the hlist.
> 
> When a module registers with stacker, if there's room in the array, it 
> reserves a slot for the module.  This slot value can be stored by stacker 
> in a handle held by the module (along with the stacker ID etc. perhaps).
> 
> Calls to security_get_value() etc. can then be very fast and simple for 
> the common case, where the security blob is a pointer offset by an index 
> in a small array.  The arbitrarily sized hlist would then be a fallback 
> with a higher performance hit.
> 
> 
> - James
> -- 
> James Morris
> <jmorris@redhat.com>
> 
>