From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from jazzdrum.ncsc.mil (zombie.ncsc.mil [144.51.88.131]) by tarius.tycho.ncsc.mil (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id k6RGbRXD026399 for ; Thu, 27 Jul 2006 12:37:27 -0400 Received: from atlrel8.hp.com (jazzdrum.ncsc.mil [144.51.5.7]) by jazzdrum.ncsc.mil (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id k6RGbOCo003980 for ; Thu, 27 Jul 2006 16:37:24 GMT Message-ID: <44C8EBC5.2020109@hp.com> Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 12:37:25 -0400 From: Paul Moore MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Karl MacMillan Cc: selinux@tycho.nsa.gov Subject: Re: Converting ebitmaps to copy-on-write? References: <44C788CA.8040907@hp.com> <44C8DE0A.1080400@mentalrootkit.com> In-Reply-To: <44C8DE0A.1080400@mentalrootkit.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: owner-selinux@tycho.nsa.gov List-Id: selinux@tycho.nsa.gov Karl MacMillan wrote: > Paul Moore wrote: >>Can anyone think of reason why converting the ebitmap code to a copy on >>write scheme would be a bad idea? Yes, there would be some overhead in >>maintaining reference counts but I suspect the added overhead would be >>more than offset by the reduction in kmalloc() calls ... thoughts? >> > > Which ebitmaps are shared enough for this to help? I don't think I have > enough context to know whether this would be a good idea or not. Stephen Smalley and I had a discussion off list about this and came to a solution that addresses my concerns (performance for the NetLabel/CIPSO patch). -- paul moore linux security @ hp -- This message was distributed to subscribers of the selinux mailing list. If you no longer wish to subscribe, send mail to majordomo@tycho.nsa.gov with the words "unsubscribe selinux" without quotes as the message.