[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1225471902.12673.415.camel@nimitz>
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 09:51:42 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc: Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
David Safford <safford@...son.ibm.com>,
Serge Hallyn <serue@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] integrity: Linux Integrity Module(LIM)
On Tue, 2008-10-14 at 09:28 -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > --- a/include/linux/fs.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/fs.h
> > @@ -683,6 +683,9 @@ struct inode {
> > #ifdef CONFIG_SECURITY
> > void *i_security;
> > #endif
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_INTEGRITY
> > + void *i_integrity;
> > +#endif
>
> Sorry, but as said before bloating the inode for this is not an option.
> Please use something like the MRU approach I suggested in the last
> review round.
Why don't we just have a 'void *i_lots_of_bloat field', and let the
security folks stick whatever they want in it? They can trade their
i_security space for a new one. I know we want to conceptually separate
security from integrity, so let's separate it:
struct i_bloat_inodes {
#ifdef CONFIG_SECURITY
void *i_security;
#endif
#ifdef CONFIG_INTEGRITY
void *i_integrity;
#endif
};
By the way, if there's no TPM hardware, why would I want i_integrity
anyway?
-- Dave
--
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