From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <53C58AE7.7070404@tresys.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 16:11:19 -0400
From: Steve Lawrence <slawrence@tresys.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Dominick Grift <dominick.grift@gmail.com>, Stephen Smalley
 <sds@tycho.nsa.gov>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Source Policy, CIL, and High Level Languages
References: <53BD9646.6030303@tresys.com>
 <1404975079.31209.11.camel@x220.localdomain> <53BE889C.9050909@tycho.nsa.gov>
 <1404996778.661.4.camel@x220.localdomain>
 <1404997743.661.7.camel@x220.localdomain> <53BE9148.3090907@tycho.nsa.gov>
 <1404998783.661.10.camel@x220.localdomain> <53BE9771.3000708@tycho.nsa.gov>
 <1404999908.661.11.camel@x220.localdomain> <53BFFC89.3060408@tresys.com>
In-Reply-To: <53BFFC89.3060408@tresys.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Cc: SELinux List <selinux@tycho.nsa.gov>
List-Id: "Security-Enhanced Linux \(SELinux\) mailing list"
 <selinux.tycho.nsa.gov>
List-Post: <mailto:selinux@tycho.nsa.gov>
List-Help: <mailto:selinux-request@tycho.nsa.gov?subject=help>

On 07/11/2014 11:02 AM, Steve Lawrence wrote:
> On 07/10/2014 09:45 AM, Dominick Grift wrote:
>> On Thu, 2014-07-10 at 09:38 -0400, Stephen Smalley wrote:
>>> On 07/10/2014 09:26 AM, Dominick Grift wrote:
>>>> 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)
>>>
>>> So, that's a concern, as we already have various bug reports on semodule
>>> and setsebool being killed by the OOM killer, e.g.
>>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1098446
>>>
>>>
>> valgrind output:
>>
>> http://paste.fedoraproject.org/116966/4999755/
>>
> 
> We just pushed a commit to CIL that greatly reduces peak memory usage.
> Some quick testing brings the peak memory usage of compiling Fedora's
> policy from around 460MB down to around 260MB. So I think its now about
> on par with current userspace. We're also working on some other changes,
> but those require a bit more work and so might take a little longer. But
> I don't think those changes will get memory usage down significantly
> more (maybe down another 10-20MB), so I doubt this will do a whole lot
> in solving the OOM killer issue.
> 

We recently pushed the second group of changes to reduce peak memory
usage, and reduced it much more than we thought it would, reducing about
50MB. It now takes about 210MB to build current fedora policy, which is
quite a bit less than the 15% of 2GB (~300MB) that Dominick saw.