[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1218796645.10800.242.camel@twins>
Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2008 12:37:25 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Helge Hafting <helge.hafting@...el.hist.no>
Cc: Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, malware-list@...ts.printk.net,
andi@...stfloor.org, riel@...hat.com, greg@...ah.com,
tytso@....edu, viro@...IV.linux.org.uk, alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk,
hch@...radead.org
Subject: Re: TALPA - a threat model? well sorta.
On Fri, 2008-08-15 at 12:07 +0200, Helge Hafting wrote:
> It seems to me that this "scan on file open" business is the
> wrong way to do things - because it reduces performance.
>
> If you scan on file open, then your security sw is too late and
> getting in the way.
>
> It is better to scan in advance. Most machines has lots of idle time.
> Use that time to scan in advance, and mark the files as "clean".
>
> A "clean" file can be opened without further checking anytime - giving
> normal high performance. A file that gets written to becomes "dirty"
> until checked again. Some mechanism for making a clean copy of a
> clean file might help avoid excessive "dirtying".
>
> "Scan on open" might still be useful for cases when the system
> haven't kept up with writing, but please don't aim to have
> this be the _primary_ mode of scanning. A file server
> where most of the stuff is pre-scanned will likely perform much better
> than one scanning everything on open.
This is the source of all that scan on write/close rambling I've seen go
past the last couple of days..
So I'd not worry about this particular aspect
--
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