On Wed, Sep 29, 2004 at 10:54:21PM +0100, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote: > On Wed, Sep 29, 2004 at 10:33:28PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 29, 2004 at 09:14:20PM +0100, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton > > wrote: > > > it's not a severe performance penalty. > > > > > > especially when it's disabled by default with "selinux=0". > > > > Yes, all the indirect calls due to CONFIG_SECURITY are a performance > > penalty. > > ... of about 2%. > > sufficiently insignificant for both redhat _and_ suse to have > started shipping, six months ago, kernels with selinux compiled in and > disabled by default.
It's more like 5% for the benchmarks I've seen (from HP), and yes, they complained to SuSE loudly because of that.
