On Thu, 2008-02-14 at 02:22 +0000, Justin Mattock wrote:
> Hello; Thanks for the info on s.m.a.c.k, ("I thought it was part of
> SELinux"); it seems similar to apparmour! I think I'll stick with
> SELinux.
> I had a quick question about power consumption, I've been doing a lot
> of testing and seem to find no signs of SELinux or audit causing any
> wakeups at all to the processor, but then googling some web site I
> came acrossed said there was a 7% overhead of energy or something in
> this area. What info do you have in the area of power consumption,
> wakeups to the processor or load on the processor with SELinux or
> audit that I should be aware of while Im doing some testing?
> regards;
Smack is quite different from AppArmor, but also quite different from
SELinux.
SELinux imposes a performance overhead, but it shouldn't especially
affect power consumption. You might be thinking of bugs in certain
SELinux-related daemons, like setroubleshootd in Fedora, that caused it
to spin.
--
Stephen Smalley
National Security Agency
--
This message was distributed to subscribers of the selinux mailing list.
If you no longer wish to subscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
the words "unsubscribe selinux" without quotes as the message.
