Re: LSM conversion to static interface [revert patch]

2007-10-23 Thread Arjan van de Ven
On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 17:31:28 -0700 Jeremy Fitzhardinge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Chris Wright wrote: > > Yes, and I think we can still improve performance although I can't > > see anyway to help out the modular case, so I guess it will have to > > incur the hit that's always been there. > >

Re: LSM conversion to static interface [revert patch]

2007-10-23 Thread Chris Wright
* Jeremy Fitzhardinge ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Chris Wright wrote: > > Yes, and I think we can still improve performance although I can't see > > anyway to help out the modular case, so I guess it will have to incur > > the hit that's always been there. > > Broaden the paravirt patching mach

Re: LSM conversion to static interface [revert patch]

2007-10-23 Thread Jeremy Fitzhardinge
Chris Wright wrote: > Yes, and I think we can still improve performance although I can't see > anyway to help out the modular case, so I guess it will have to incur > the hit that's always been there. Broaden the paravirt patching machinery? J - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line

Re: LSM conversion to static interface [revert patch]

2007-10-23 Thread Jan Engelhardt
On Oct 23 2007 02:13, Chris Wright wrote: >* Jan Engelhardt ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: >> On Oct 22 2007 22:16, Chris Wright wrote: >> >Yes, and I think we can still improve performance although I can't see >> >anyway to help out the modular case, so I guess it will have to incur >> >the hit that'

Re: LSM conversion to static interface [revert patch]

2007-10-23 Thread Chris Wright
* Jan Engelhardt ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > On Oct 22 2007 22:16, Chris Wright wrote: > >Yes, and I think we can still improve performance although I can't see > >anyway to help out the modular case, so I guess it will have to incur > >the hit that's always been there. I think your Kconfig optio

Re: LSM conversion to static interface [revert patch]

2007-10-23 Thread Jan Engelhardt
On Oct 22 2007 22:16, Chris Wright wrote: >> >> If it turns out that the above module becomes unmaintained and no >> longer usable, and no other useful cases show up, we can always >> garbage collect this code in the future; it's now low-overhead >> anyway for those who care, due to the KConfig o

Re: LSM conversion to static interface [revert patch]

2007-10-22 Thread Chris Wright
* Arjan van de Ven ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 08:57:06 +1000 (EST) > James Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Sat, 20 Oct 2007, Jan Engelhardt wrote: > > > > > >I'd like to note that I asked people who were actually affected, > > > >and had examples of their real-wor

Re: LSM conversion to static interface [revert patch]

2007-10-22 Thread Arjan van de Ven
On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 14:56:52 +1000 (EST) James Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, 22 Oct 2007, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > > > @@ -4895,6 +4908,7 @@ static struct security_operations selinu > > .sem_semop =selinux_sem_semop, > > > > .register_security = > > se

Re: LSM conversion to static interface [revert patch]

2007-10-22 Thread James Morris
On Mon, 22 Oct 2007, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > @@ -4895,6 +4908,7 @@ static struct security_operations selinu > .sem_semop =selinux_sem_semop, > > .register_security =selinux_register_security, > + .unregister_security = selinux_unregister

Re: LSM conversion to static interface [revert patch]

2007-10-22 Thread Arjan van de Ven
On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 08:57:06 +1000 (EST) James Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, 20 Oct 2007, Jan Engelhardt wrote: > > > >I'd like to note that I asked people who were actually affected, > > >and had examples of their real-world use to step forward and > > >explain their use, and that