[lkml]   [2010]   [Oct]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 01/11] IMA: use rbtree instead of radix tree for inode information cache
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 02:41:18PM -0400, Eric Paris wrote:
> The IMA code needs to store the number of tasks which have an open fd
> granting permission to write a file even when IMA is not in use. It needs
> this information in order to be enabled at a later point in time without
> losing it's integrity garantees. At the moment that means we store a
> little bit of data about every inode in a cache. We use a radix tree key'd
> on the inode's memory address. Dave Chinner pointed out that a radix tree
> is a terrible data structure for such a sparse key space. This patch
> switches to using an rbtree which should be more efficient.

I'm not sure this is the right fix, though.

Realistically, there is a 1:1 relationship between the inode and the
IMA information. I fail to see why an external index is needed here
at all - just use a separate structure to store the IMA information
that the inode points to. That makes the need for a new global index
and global lock go away completely.

You're already adding 8 bytes to the inode, so why not make it a
pointer. We've got 4 conditions:

1. not configured - no overhead
2. configured, boot time disabled - 8 bytes per inode
3. configured, boot time enabled, runtime disabled - 8 bytes per
inode + small IMA structure
4. configured, boot time enabled, runtime enabled - 8 bytes per
inode + large IMA structure

Anyone who wants the option of runtime enablement can take the extra
allocation overhead, but otherwise nobody is affected apart from 8
bytes of additional memory per inode. I doubt that will change
anything unless it increases the size of the inode enough to push it
over slab boundaries. And if LSM stacking is introduced, then that 8
bytes per inode overhead will go away, anyway.

This approach doesn't introduce new global lock and lookup overhead
into the main VFS paths, allows you to remove a bunch of code and
has a path forward for removing the 8 byte per inode overhead as
well. Seems like the best compromise to me....


Dave Chinner

 \ /
  Last update: 2010-10-26 01:27    [W:0.066 / U:0.568 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site