From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S964787AbVHYEjy (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Aug 2005 00:39:54 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S964791AbVHYEjy (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Aug 2005 00:39:54 -0400 Received: from mail23.sea5.speakeasy.net ([69.17.117.25]:63877 "EHLO mail23.sea5.speakeasy.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S964787AbVHYEjx (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Aug 2005 00:39:53 -0400 Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2005 00:39:49 -0400 (EDT) From: James Morris X-X-Sender: jmorris@excalibur.intercode To: Chris Wright cc: linux-security-module@wirex.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Kurt Garloff , Stephen Smalley Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] LSM hook updates In-Reply-To: <20050825012028.720597000@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: References: <20050825012028.720597000@localhost.localdomain> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 24 Aug 2005, Chris Wright wrote: > This is based on Kurt's original work. The net effect is that > LSM hooks are called conditionally, and in all cases capabilities > provide the defaults. I've done some basic performance testing, and > found nothing surprising. Do you mean nothing noticable? > I'm interested to see numbers from others > before I push this up. These are against Linus' current git tree (they > will clash with the -mm tree). Are there any numbers for popular architectures like i386 and x86_64? - James -- James Morris