Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755341AbXJBX1A (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Oct 2007 19:27:00 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752749AbXJBX0w (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Oct 2007 19:26:52 -0400 Received: from smtp2.linux-foundation.org ([207.189.120.14]:58042 "EHLO smtp2.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752357AbXJBX0v (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Oct 2007 19:26:51 -0400 Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 16:25:55 -0700 (PDT) From: Linus Torvalds To: Bill Davidsen cc: Stephen Smalley , James Morris , Andrew Morton , casey@schaufler-ca.com, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Version 3 (2.6.23-rc8) Smack: Simplified Mandatory Access Control Kernel In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <46FEEBD4.5050401@schaufler-ca.com> <20070930011618.ccb8351b.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <1191253239.7672.76.camel@moss-spartans.epoch.ncsc.mil> <4702B1D5.5050502@tmr.com> 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: 2145 Lines: 46 On Tue, 2 Oct 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > I don't know who came up with it, or why people continue to feed the > insane ideas. Why do people think that servers don't care about latency? > Why do people believe that desktop doesn't have multiple processors or > through-put intensive loads? Why are people continuing this *idiotic* > scheduler discussion? Btw, one thing that is true: while both servers and desktop cares about latency, it's often easier to *see* the issues on the desktop (or hear them: audio skipping). But that doesn't mean that the server people wouldn't care, and it doesn't mean that scheduling would be "fundamentally different" on servers or the desktop. In contrast, security really *is* fundamentally different in different situations. For example, I find SELinux to be so irrelevant to my usage that I don't use it at all. I just don't have any other users on my machine, so the security I care about is in firewalls etc. And that really *is* fundamentally different from a system that has shell access to its users. Which in turn is fundamentally different from one that has some legal reasons why it needs to have a particular kind of security. Which in turn is fundamentally different from .... You get the idea. It boils down to: "scheduling is scheduling", and doesn't really change apart from the kind of decisions that are required by any scheduler (ie RT vs non-RT etc). Everybody wants the same thing in the end: low latency for loads where that matters, high bandwidth for loads where that matters. It's not a "one user has only one kind of load". Not at all. Security, on the other hand, very much does depend on the circumstances and the wishes of the users (or policy-makers). And if we had one module that everybody would be happy with, I'd not make it pluggable either. But as it is, we _know_ that's not the case. Linus - 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/