[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1287414122.29097.1611.camel@twins>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 17:02:02 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Ted Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
Cc: Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>, Eric Paris <eparis@...isplace.org>,
Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
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 Mon, 2010-10-18 at 10:59 -0400, Ted Ts'o wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 01:57:28PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Well, you could use the actual freezer to freeze luserspace and then
> > simply iterate all open files, I mean, those few sods who actually want
> > this enabled can either pass a boot option to enable from boot or suffer
> > the overhead on enable, right?
>
> I'm a little confused why anyone would want to turn on IMA at any time
> other than right away at boot? If you haven't been doing integrity
> management checking from the very beginning of the boot process, what
> does turning on IMA after the system has booted buy you in the way of
> security protections?
>
> In other words, turning on IMA via a boot option seems to be the only
> thing that makes any sense at all.
Fine with me.. I simply understood there was a requirement for post-boot
enablement and tried to come up with a solution for that.
--
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