[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1225481722.21941.42.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 15:35:22 -0400
From: Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: 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 Fri, 2008-10-31 at 09:40 -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-10-13 at 13:17 -0400, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> > Concern was raised on the lkml mailing list, about adding i_integrity
> > to the inode structure. This patch adds a comment clarifying that
> > i_integrity is only included in the inode if INTEGRITY is configured.
>
> Mimi, it is nice that you made this a config option. That definitely
> helps the embedded folks and those compiling their own kernels. But, it
> doesn't really help those who run distros.
>
> The distributions basically ship one kernel for everybody, and it has to
> have CONFIG_KITCHEN_SINK=y in order to support everyone's individual
> users. Although you provided a config option, in practice, this always
> bloats distro kernels which are the vast majority of users.
Thank you for giving a more fuller explanation as to why extending the
inode is such an issue.
> Is this even useful for filesystems like proc or sysfs? Should we bloat
> those inodes for a feature which might not possibly apply there?
Currently, we're not measuring proc or sysfs files.
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