[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.02.1209191419410.29525@tundra.namei.org>
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 14:21:56 +1000 (EST)
From: James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>
To: "Kasatkin, Dmitry" <dmitry.kasatkin@...el.com>
cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-security-module <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: IMA policy search speedup
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012, Kasatkin, Dmitry wrote:
> I looked to <linux/fs.h> and found that there is a possibility to to
> add additional flag for sb->s_flags.
> For example
>
> #define MS_NOT_IMA (1<<25) /* NOT_IMA */
> #define IS_I_NOT_IMA(inode) __IS_FLG(inode, MS_NOT_IMA)
>
>
> Another way is to add additional dedicated integrity related member to
> the sb structure.
> struct super_block {
> ...
> #ifdef CONFIG_INTEGRITY
> int s_integrity;
> #endif
> };
>
> Obviously there are only few super blocks in the system and few bytes
> will not harm.
The flag seems better than adding a new struct member. Why would you need
an int for this?
- James
--
James Morris
<jmorris@...ei.org>
--
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