Re: [PATCH] 5/5: LSM hooks rework

[Kurt Garloff]

Hi James,

On Mon, Feb 14, 2005 at 11:50:01AM -0500, James Morris wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Feb 2005, Kurt Garloff wrote:
> 
> >  /* Condition for invocation of non-default security_op */
> >  #define COND_SECURITY(seop, def) 	\
> > -	(likely(security_ops == &capability_security_ops))? def: security_ops->seop
> > +	(unlikely(security_enabled))? security_ops->seop: def
> 
> So this will cause a false unlikely() for every single SELinux hook,
> again.

A correct unlikely() in my book.

Yes, that was one of the reasons that I split up the patches.

There are people who believe that we should optimize for the 
slow path (SELinux) or at least not penalize it.
Fine with me, feel free to ignore patches 4, 5 then.

> This was rejected last year. 

It wasn't. The discussion did not come to a conclusion.

Best regards,
-- 
Kurt Garloff, Director SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.

Attachment: pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature