[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.1.10.0808181033290.15109@asgard.lang.hm>
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 10:38:54 -0700 (PDT)
From: david@...g.hm
To: Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>
cc: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>, tvrtko.ursulin@...hos.com,
Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>, davecb@....com,
Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
malware-list@...ts.printk.net,
Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [malware-list] scanner interface proposal was: [TALPA] Intro to
a linux interface for on access scanning
On Mon, 18 Aug 2008, Eric Paris wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-08-18 at 17:15 +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
>>> read -> we have the ALLOW/mark result bit in core set so just allow.
>>
>> Don't think we need this - SELinux can do that bit
>>
>>> mtime update -> clear ALLOW/"mark result" bit in core, send async
>>> notification to userspace
>>
>> Why via the kernel ?
>
> the single in core allow/deny bit is so that the vast majority of
> operations are completely free. Say we scan/index /lib/ld-linux.so.2
> once. Do you really want every single read/mmap operation from then on
> to have to block waiting for the userspace caches of you HSM, your AV
> scanner, and you indexer? If all three tell the kernel they don't need
> to see it again and that information is easy and free to maintain, lets
> do it.
this is why the proposal caches the results of all the scanners with the
file (in the xattrs), rather then having each scanner store it's own scan
results
David Lang
--
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