linux-kernel - Re: IMA policy search speedup

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 19 Sep 2012 14:21:56 +1000 (EST)
From:	James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>
To:	"Kasatkin, Dmitry" <dmitry.kasatkin@...el.com>
cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-security-module <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: IMA policy search speedup

On Tue, 18 Sep 2012, Kasatkin, Dmitry wrote:

> I looked to <linux/fs.h> and found that there is a possibility to to
> add additional flag for sb->s_flags.
> For example
> 
> #define MS_NOT_IMA              (1<<25) /* NOT_IMA */
> #define IS_I_NOT_IMA(inode)   __IS_FLG(inode, MS_NOT_IMA)
> 
> 
> Another way is to add additional dedicated integrity related member to
> the sb structure.
> struct super_block {
> ...
> #ifdef CONFIG_INTEGRITY
>       int s_integrity;
> #endif
> };
> 
> Obviously there are only few super blocks in the system and few bytes
> will not harm.

The flag seems better than adding a new struct member.  Why would you need 
an int for this?



- James
-- 
James Morris
<jmorris@...ei.org>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/