[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1287324560.3125.14.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2010 10:09:20 -0400
From: Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
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 13:02 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 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?
At one point there was a command line option, similar to
SECURITY_SELINUX_BOOTPARAM, to enable/disable IMA. Based on review
here, it was removed.
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