Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756391Ab1DVVQ4 (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Apr 2011 17:16:56 -0400 Received: from one.firstfloor.org ([213.235.205.2]:35430 "EHLO one.firstfloor.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752736Ab1DVVQy (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Apr 2011 17:16:54 -0400 Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2011 23:16:49 +0200 From: Andi Kleen To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Andi Kleen , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, npiggin@kernel.dk, shaohua.li@intel.com, sds@tycho.nsa.gov, jmorris@namei.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, Eric Paris Subject: Re: Make RCU dcache work with CONFIG_SECURITY=y Message-ID: <20110422211649.GW16484@one.firstfloor.org> References: <1303431801-10540-1-git-send-email-andi@firstfloor.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2195 Lines: 50 On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 11:26:09AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 5:23 PM, Andi Kleen wrote: > > > > I didn't find good test suites for the security modules, so > > there wasn't a lot of testing on this unfortunately > > (the selinux one for LTP doesn't seem to work). Some close > > review of these changes is needed. > > > > On the other hand the VFS changes itself are very straight forward > > and the 1/1 patch is very straight forward (and a win in itself) > > > > The bottom line is with this patchkit a CONFIG_SECURITY=y > > kernel has as good VFS performance as a kernel with CONFIG_SECURITY > > disabled. > > Gaah. My immediate reaction to the patch-series was "This is great, I > was really hoping we could get all those annoying cases sorted out, > and I'll queue them for the next merge window". > > Having then actually read through the patches a bit more, I then got > convinced that at least the first patch should probably be applied > right away and be marked for stable, since it looks pretty damn > obvious to me, and it might already on its own fix the performance > regression for some configurations (although realistically I guess few > enough people really do the "selinux=0" thing, so the big advantage is > making easier to backport the other patches later if we don't do them > now). Yes I agree. The first patch is (nearly) a no-brainer and already has significant benefits. I would like to see it in .39. > Comments? I'd really like to see/hear feedback like "yeah, this looks > really obviously safe" vs "yeah, looks good, but I really don't feel > very comfortable with it" from the security people. Especially SMACK review is needed. Or maybe selinux only for now, already got one ack for that. (BTW I have some doubts on the locking in smack in general, but that's a separate issue -- see other thread) -Andi -- ak@linux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only. -- 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/