[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4CC75155.4060807@zytor.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 15:08:21 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: John Stoffel <john@...ffel.org>
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, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, mingo@...e.hu,
viro@...iv.linux.org.uk
Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/11] IMA: use i_writecount rather than a private counter
On 10/26/2010 06:53 AM, John Stoffel wrote:
>
> No. What I was trying to get at, and probably poorly, was the comment
> you made about having to keep the IMA data structures around, even if
> IMA has been disabled, so that you could continue to claim integrity
> if IMA was re-enabled.
>
> So my question is really about the following situation:
>
> 1. System boots up, IMA is enabled.
> 2. SysAdmin notices and turns it off.
> - does the IMA overhead (not the per-inode 4 bytes) go away?
> - do the various in memory data structures get freed?
> - does the pointer in the inode get null'ed?
>
I think it's reasonable to require a reboot in this case.
-hpa
--
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