On Thu, 2014-07-10 at 09:12 -0400, Stephen Smalley wrote: > On 07/10/2014 09:09 AM, Dominick Grift wrote: > > On Thu, 2014-07-10 at 14:52 +0200, Dominick Grift wrote: > >> On Thu, 2014-07-10 at 08:35 -0400, Stephen Smalley wrote: > >> > >> <snip> > >> > >>> Thanks for testing it. How did it look from a performance POV, wrt > >>> memory use and runtime? > >>> > >> > >> I have not (yet) really focused on that but i suppose there was no real > >> noticeable slow down or speed up. > >> > >> Any tips on how i could provide useful benchmarks? > >> > >> I suppose i could enable the neverallow check > >> in /etc/selinux/semanage.conf and i would bet it is now much faster than > >> it used to be (in fact ill try that) > >> > >> > > > > I suspect i was lying. > > > > I am installing a guest with similar specs now and same software except > > the cil mods and then do some comparison. > > > > i suppose stuff like time semodule -B > > and looking at top > > > > I did do a semodule -B with checking for neverallow rules but that found > > a violation really fast (thanks fedora). So although i cant really say > > how much faster that is , it is pretty safe to assume its much faster > > now > > /usr/bin/time setsebool -P httpd_can_network_connect=1 > valgrind --tool=massif setsebool -P httpd_can_network_connect=1 > ms_print massif.out.<pid> > > > Will do that next. I did a time semodule -B on similar configs (2 cores/2GB ram): Result: cil seems faster but seems to take more memory: CIL: real 0m13.XXXs (23% mem (of 2 GB) REGULAR: real 0m21.XXXs (15% mem (of 2 GB) _______________________________________________ Selinux mailing list Selinux@xxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe, send email to Selinux-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxx. To get help, send an email containing "help" to Selinux-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.
