[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1212152769.21336.4.camel@new-host.home>
Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 09:06:09 -0400
From: Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, safford@...son.ibm.com,
serue@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, sailer@...son.ibm.com, zohar@...ibm.com,
Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>,
CaseySchaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][Patch 5/5]integrity: IMA as an integrity service provider
On Wed, 2008-05-28 at 20:30 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > - ima_fixup_inodes looks like it will race and crash against a
> > > well-timed unmount. I expect you will need to bump s_count before
> > > dropping sb_lock. See writeback_inodes() for an example.
> >
> > ima_fixup_inodes() is called once at initialization.
>
> What is "initialisation"? During initcalls? Are there even any files
> in cache at that time? I bet we can arrange for the answer to become
> "no".
Yes, during the initcalls. Is this possible even when using
late_initcall(). IMA is dependent on the TPM being available,
if it is being used.
Mimi
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists