Bug#249510: acknowledged by developer (selinux in debian kernel)
On Wed, Sep 29, 2004 at 10:54:21PM +0100, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 29, 2004 at 10:33:28PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 29, 2004 at 09:14:20PM +0100, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> > > it's not a severe performance penalty.
> > >
> > > especially when it's disabled by default with "selinux=0".
> >
> > Yes, all the indirect calls due to CONFIG_SECURITY are a performance
> > penalty.
>
> ... of about 2%.
>
> sufficiently insignificant for both redhat _and_ suse to have
> started shipping, six months ago, kernels with selinux compiled in and
> disabled by default.
It's more like 5% for the benchmarks I've seen (from HP), and yes, they
complained to SuSE loudly because of that.
Reply to: