On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 01:58:32PM -0700, David S. Miller wrote:
> From: Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>
> Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 13:58:31 -0700
>
> I've run the numbers myself on OSDL machines, and seen that there is no
> measurable overhead for these functions. Sure, there is an extra
> function call, and different assembler, I'll never contest that. It's
> just that I could not measure it.
>
> Did you look at the _code_? Did you measure the size of even the
> non security/*.o object code with/without the hooks? What is the
> added overhead?
I did not look at size, sorry. I only looked at run-time performance.
> 2.5.x is busting at the seams currently and CONFIG_SECURITY is part of
> the reason why.
With the patch I just sent, that size issue should be resolved.
> I need to convince you to implement this in a way, so that like
> USB, there is zero overhead when I enable it as a module. :-)
I would love to implement it in such a manner. Without using
self-modifying code, do you have any ideas of how this could be done?
thanks,
greg k-h
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Oct 23 2002 - 22:00:37 EST