From: James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>
To: John Richard Moser <nigelenki@comcast.net>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: The price of SELinux (CPU)
Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2005 10:34:07 -0400 (EDT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.63.0510041026180.18246@excalibur.intercode> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <434204F8.2030209@comcast.net>
On Tue, 4 Oct 2005, John Richard Moser wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> I've heard that SELinux has produced benchmarks such as 7% increased CPU
> load.
The overall performance hit across several micro and macro benchmarks,
when last measured last year sometime, was around 7%, depending on
workload and what you were testing. It's a very rough figure and any
serious benchmarking needs to be done for the intended workload.
The AVC is now linearly scalable (measured up to 32 processors) thanks to
RCU and work by NEC.
> Is this true and current? Is it dependent on policy? What is
> the policy lookup complexity ( O(1), O(n), O(nlogn)...)? Are there
> other places where a bottleneck may exist aside from gruffing with the
> policy? Isn't the policy actually in xattrs so it's O(1)? Where else
> would an overhead that big come from aside from a lookup in a table?
The overhead is generally independent of policy size, as policy is cached
in the AVC and most workloads use a trivial number of policy rules in a
steady state (often less than 20).
So, generally, you'll only have a very small number of AVC entries active,
although you could have some longish hash chains if policy has not been
reloaded since boot.
Look in /selinux/avc for stats.
Googling for "selinux performance" will guide you to:
http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_morris/2153.html
- James
--
James Morris
<jmorris@namei.org>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-10-04 14:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-10-04 4:28 John Richard Moser
2005-10-04 4:38 ` Dan C Marinescu
2005-10-04 4:59 ` John Richard Moser
2005-10-04 5:06 ` Dan C Marinescu
2005-10-04 6:20 ` John Richard Moser
2005-10-04 6:39 ` Dan C Marinescu
2005-10-04 6:43 ` Dan C Marinescu
2005-10-04 6:51 ` Dan C Marinescu
2005-10-04 13:57 ` serue
2005-10-04 6:57 ` Dan C Marinescu
2005-10-04 7:06 ` Dan C Marinescu
2005-10-04 20:36 ` Bill Davidsen
2005-10-04 22:24 ` Dan C Marinescu
2005-10-04 5:03 ` Dan C Marinescu
2005-10-04 14:34 ` James Morris [this message]
2005-10-04 15:39 ` Valdis.Kletnieks
2005-10-04 18:29 ` John Richard Moser
2005-10-04 19:43 ` Valdis.Kletnieks
2005-10-04 20:10 ` John Richard Moser
2005-10-04 22:32 ` Valdis.Kletnieks
2005-10-04 23:00 ` Dan C Marinescu
2005-10-05 2:02 ` John Richard Moser
2005-10-05 19:42 ` Bill Davidsen
2005-10-05 19:40 ` Bill Davidsen
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=Pine.LNX.4.63.0510041026180.18246@excalibur.intercode \
--to=jmorris@namei.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=nigelenki@comcast.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
Powered by JetHome