[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <AANLkTimL=eChoCQHGoiouE5s6dGG=n9ZAQGhW-RW+gDj@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 10:03:48 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Cc: Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, hch@...radead.org, zohar@...ibm.com,
warthog9@...nel.org, david@...morbit.com, jmorris@...ei.org,
kyle@...artin.ca, hpa@...or.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
mingo@...e.hu
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] IMA: move read/write counters into struct inode
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 9:55 AM, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
>
> a) i_writecount is about VM_DENYWRITE, basically. Reusing it for ima could
> get unpleasant; when it's positive, we are fine, but it can get negative as
> well. IMA will have interesting time dealing with that.
>
> b) i_count is simply a refcount for struct inode. Not exactly the number
> of dentries, but that's the main contributor. Basically, that's "how many
> pointers outside of inode hash chains point that that struct inode at the
> moment".
My question was deeper. More along the lines of "why would IMA care?"
How/why could IMA ever care about the pointless and trivial
differences between its current private open/read/write counts and the
counts that we already maintain?
Yes, yes, I realize that they have technical differences in what they
count. That's not the question. The question is "Why would IMA care?"
Linus
--
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