Re: [PATCH (mmotm-2008-12-02-17-08)] Introducesecurity_path_set/clear() hooks.

[Tetsuo Handa]

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.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/