[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1246286783.4054.56.camel@dyn9002018117.watson.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 10:46:23 -0400
From: Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: hooanon05@...oo.co.jp
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
David Safford <safford@...son.ibm.com>,
Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] integrity: add ima_counts_put (updated)
On Mon, 2009-06-29 at 23:12 +0900, hooanon05@...oo.co.jp wrote:
> Mimi Zohar:
> > This patch fixes an imbalance message as reported by J.R. Okajima.
> > The IMA file counters are incremented in ima_path_check. If the
> > actual open fails, such as ETXTBSY, decrement the counters to
> > prevent unnecessary imbalance messages.
>
> Although I have no objection for this fix, I'd like to suggest you to
> stop incrementing the counters in ima_path_check().
> A while ago IMA_COUNT_LEAVE and ima_counts_get() were introduced, and
> now ima_counts_put() appears.
> Isn't it easier something like this,
> - stop incrementing in ima_path_check().
> - call ima_counts_get() in dentry_open() (or similar).
> - delete IMA_COUNT_LEAVE/UPDATE and ima_counts_put().
>
> How do you think?
>
>
> J. R. Okajima
This suggestion has been mentioned before; and yes would definitely
resolve the annoying imbalance and iint_free() messages. But
incrementing/decrementing the pointers automatically each time a file is
opened/closed would defeat their purpose - alerting us that a file was
possibly not measured before being read/executed.
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