* [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Quoting Chris Wright ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > > A little surprising: kernbench is improved, but dbench and tbench
> > > are worse - though within the 95% CI.
> >
> > It is interesting. Would be good to see what happens with the cap_ bits
> > used i
Quoting Chris Wright ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > A little surprising: kernbench is improved, but dbench and tbench
> > are worse - though within the 95% CI.
>
> It is interesting. Would be good to see what happens with the cap_ bits
> used in SELinux instead of secondary callout.
Here are the new n
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Here are some numbers on a 4way x86 - PIII 700Mhz with 1G memory (hmm,
> highmem not enabled). I should hopefully have a 2way ppc available
> later today for a pair of runs.
Thanks for running these numbers Serge.
> dbench and tbench were run 50 t
Quoting Stephen Smalley ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> On Fri, 2005-08-26 at 04:23 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Here are some numbers on a 4way x86 - PIII 700Mhz with 1G memory (hmm,
> > highmem not enabled). I should hopefully have a 2way ppc available
> > later today for a pair of runs.
> >
> >
On Fri, 2005-08-26 at 04:23 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Here are some numbers on a 4way x86 - PIII 700Mhz with 1G memory (hmm,
> highmem not enabled). I should hopefully have a 2way ppc available
> later today for a pair of runs.
>
> dbench and tbench were run 50 times each, kernbench and r
Quoting Chris Wright ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> * Chris Wright ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > I'll have some numbers tomorrow. If you'd like to run SELinux that'd
> > be quite useful.
>
> These are just lmbench and kernel build numbers (certainly not the best
> for real benchmark numbers, but easy to
* Chris Wright ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> I'll have some numbers tomorrow. If you'd like to run SELinux that'd
> be quite useful.
These are just lmbench and kernel build numbers (certainly not the best
for real benchmark numbers, but easy to get a quick view run). This is
just baseline (i.e. d
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Did you ever check this with selinux?
No, thanks for catching that oversight.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majo
Did you ever check this with selinux? I'm assuming that the problem is
that selinux does things like:
rc = secondary_ops->task_create();
when secondary_ops->task_create can now be null...
(Will whip up the obvious patch asap - later this morning)
-serge
Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL
Hmm, haven't yet figured out why, but something in this patchset
doesn't work for power5. Oops attached, as well as the assembly
for selinux_task_create (which I'm weeding through right now).
thanks,
-serge
Oops output from console:
Security Framework v1.0.0 initialized
SELinux: Initializing.
* James Morris ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Aug 2005, Chris Wright wrote:
>
> > This is based on Kurt's original work. The net effect is that
> > LSM hooks are called conditionally, and in all cases capabilities
> > provide the defaults. I've done some basic performance testing, and
>
On Wed, 24 Aug 2005, Chris Wright wrote:
> This is based on Kurt's original work. The net effect is that
> LSM hooks are called conditionally, and in all cases capabilities
> provide the defaults. I've done some basic performance testing, and
> found nothing surprising.
Do you mean nothing noti
12 matches
Mail list logo
