nits:
1) I'm not sure the "no-op if CONFIG_CSA not set" comments
are worthwhile - it does not seem to be a common practice
to mark macros that collapse under certain CONFIG's with
such comments, and some code, such as in fork.c, would
become quite a bit less readable if such comments were
widely used.
2) Three of the added csa_update_integrals() lines have
leading spaces, instead of a tab char, such as in:
===================================================================
--- linux.orig/fs/exec.c 2004-09-27 11:57:40.201435722 -0700
+++ linux/fs/exec.c 2004-09-27 14:05:41.266160725 -0700
@@ -1163,6 +1164,9 @@
/* execve success */
security_bprm_free(&bprm);
+ /* no-op if CONFIG_CSA not set */
+ csa_update_integrals(); <=========
+ update_mem_hiwater(); <=========
return retval;
}
3) Is it always the case that csa_update_integrals() and
update_mem_hiwater() are used together? If so, perhaps
they could be collapsed into one? Even the current->mm
test inside them could be made one test, perhaps?
4) What kind of kernel text size expansion does this cause?
There seem to be about a dozen of these calls. What are
the pros and cons of inlining csa_update_integrals() and
update_mem_hiwater()? Are these on hot enough kernel code
paths that we should benchmark with and without these hooks
enabled, both inline and out-of-line?
--
I won't rest till it's the best ...
Programmer, Linux Scalability
Paul Jackson <pj@xxxxxxx> 1.650.933.1373
|