[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1287313332.1998.172.camel@laptop>
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2010 13:02:12 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ibm.com>,
warthog9@...nel.org, hpa@...or.com, devel@...ts.fedoraprojet.org
Subject: Re: ima: use of radix tree cache indexing == massive waste of
memory?
On Sun, 2010-10-17 at 01:57 -0400, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-10-16 at 15:20 -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > Besides the algorithmic problems with ima, why is kernel.org using
> > IMA to start with? Except for IBM looking for a reason to jusity why
> > TPM isn't a completely waster of ressources it's pointless. And it was
> > only merged under the premise that it would not affect innocent normal
> > users.
> >
>
> Can we keep this at the design level please? When IMA is enabled, it
> needs to store information on a per inode basis, yet has to wait to
> late_initcall() for the TPM, at which point some inodes would have
> already been created.
Being build (CONFIG_IMA=y) is not the same as default enabled. Is there
a way to build this stuff and not have it enabled?
--
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