Re: [PATCH] [LSM] Rework LSM hooks

[Kurt Garloff]

On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 10:16:29AM -0400, James Morris wrote:
> Is this just an ia64 issue?  If so, then perhaps we should look at only
> penalising ia64?  Otherwise, loading an LSM module is going to cause
> expensive false unlikely() on _every_ LSM hook.

You should worry about the fast path.
That's no LSM being loaded and just using the default capabilities.
Which is what most users usse as of this time.
If you do call into any serious LSM, you'll spend much more CPU cycles
anyway ...

Regards,
-- 
Kurt Garloff                   <kurt@xxxxxxxxxx>             [Koeln, DE]
Physics:Plasma modeling <garloff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> [TU Eindhoven, NL]
Linux: SUSE Labs (Head)        <garloff@xxxxxxx>    [SUSE Nuernberg, DE]

Attachment: pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature