[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1287295077.3020.83.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2010 01:57:57 -0400
From: Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc: 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 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. For this reason, there is a two step
initialization process, one which allocates the iints at
security_initcall() and the other which enables IMA at late_initcall().
Instead of actually allocating the iints, between security_initcall()
and late_initcall(), the original design maintained a list of inodes and
only allocated the iints if/when IMA was enabled. This design was
rejected way back when.
As for using a radix tree, that was what you recommended.
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