On Fri, 2011-04-22 at 11:26 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 5:23 PM, Andi Kleen <andi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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). > > And now I'm vacillating about the two later patches too. They look > fine to me, but I really have _zero_ familiarity with selinux and > smack internals, so unlike the first patch, I can't go "that looks > like the obviously right thing, and it clearly catches all the RCU > cases". > > The "we can't use all the nifty RCU pathwalk in the config that most > distros ship by default" is clearly a performance regression, and has > meant that it's not been really showing its real advantages for most > people. So in that sense, it's a regression fix and thus valid even > though we're pretty late in the -rc series. > > But at the same time, it's also a bit scary. > > 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. >From an SELinux PoV (And I feel semi confident about SMACK) patch 1/3 can and should go in as soon as you want. 2/3 looked safe on first glance, but I think I can make it smaller and better. I'll try to get a version of 2/3 on list in the next couple of days. My first thought was that it should probably go in via my SELinux tree next window...... -Eric -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
