Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261482AbVBNQu0 (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Feb 2005 11:50:26 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261483AbVBNQu0 (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Feb 2005 11:50:26 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:41131 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261482AbVBNQuS (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Feb 2005 11:50:18 -0500 Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 11:50:01 -0500 (EST) From: James Morris X-X-Sender: jmorris@thoron.boston.redhat.com To: Kurt Garloff cc: Linux kernel list , Andreas Gruenbacher , Chris Wright , Stephen Smalley Subject: Re: [PATCH] 5/5: LSM hooks rework In-Reply-To: <20050213211238.GM27893@tpkurt.garloff.de> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 872 Lines: 26 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. This was rejected last year. The thread you pointed to has some discussion of dealing with the problematic ia64 case, although there's no evidence in these patches that anything has progressed in that area since then. - James -- James Morris - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/