Re: [SE/Linux] status / progress report 13jun2004
- To: James Morris <jmorris@redhat.com>
- Cc: Russell Coker <russell@coker.com.au>, debian-devel@lists.debian.org, Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>, SE-Linux <selinux@tycho.nsa.gov>, debian-user@lists.debian.org
- Subject: Re: [SE/Linux] status / progress report 13jun2004
- From: Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton <lkcl@lkcl.net>
- Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 18:49:00 +0000
- Message-id: <[🔎] 20040618184900.GI362@lkcl.net>
- Mail-followup-to: James Morris <jmorris@redhat.com>, Russell Coker <russell@coker.com.au>, debian-devel@lists.debian.org, Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>, SE-Linux <selinux@tycho.nsa.gov>, debian-user@lists.debian.org
- In-reply-to: <[🔎] Xine.LNX.4.44.0406140948220.22658-100000@thoron.boston.redhat.com>
- References: <[🔎] 200406141735.59407.russell@coker.com.au> <[🔎] Xine.LNX.4.44.0406140948220.22658-100000@thoron.boston.redhat.com>
On Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 09:59:21AM -0400, James Morris wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Jun 2004, Russell Coker wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 03:01, Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> wrote:
>
> > > It's actually disabled again (compiled in but disabled) in SuSE because
> > > the performance hit was much much worse. And I remember benchmark
> > > numbers where the lsm hooks alone decreased the SpecWeb numbers on ia64
> > > by more than 10%. I'd vote strongy against enabling LSM in the Debian
> > > kernel images.
>
> When did you see these figures? They are not consistent with the
> performance data I've seen.
to be absolutely honest, i cannot remember.
i saw it once, in some se/linux documentation or a faq, and then
took that as read.
l.
Reply to: