lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Oct]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [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


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-10-27 00:13    [W:0.069 / U:0.124 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site