Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] allow disabling IMA at runtime | From | Eric Paris <> | Date | Thu, 27 Aug 2009 08:57:29 -0400 |
| |
On Thu, 2009-08-27 at 08:30 -0400, David Safford wrote: > >Hey Mimi, I was going to get in touch with you today, I don't really > >think this patch is necessary. Kyle hacked it together because it was a > >quick and dirty 'fix' for a memory leak that he didn't want to hunt down > >and he knows I won't let him compile IMA out *smile*. Intended to try > >to track it down this morning, but I'm getting swamped already, maybe > >you can try to figure out what's going on before I get a chance to come > >back to it this afternoon? > > > >nfs_inode_cache 34 34 1824 17 8 : tunables 0 0 0 : slabdata 2 2 0 > >fuse_inode 22 22 1472 22 8 : tunables 0 0 0 : slabdata 1 1 0 > >rpc_inode_cache 40 40 1600 20 8 : tunables 0 0 0 : slabdata 2 2 0 > >btrfs_inode_cache 10622 10668 2328 14 8 : tunables 0 0 0 : slabdata 762 762 0 > >iint_cache 369714 369720 312 26 2 : tunables 0 0 0 : slabdata 14220 14220 0 > >mqueue_inode_cache 19 19 1664 19 8 : tunables 0 0 0 : slabdata 1 1 0 > >isofs_inode_cache 0 0 1288 25 8 : tunables 0 0 0 : slabdata 0 0 0 > >hugetlbfs_inode_cache 24 24 1312 24 8 : tunables 0 0 0 : slabdata 1 1 0 > >ext4_inode_cache 0 0 1864 17 8 : tunables 0 0 0 : slabdata 0 0 0 > >ext3_inode_cache 19 19 1656 19 8 : tunables 0 0 0 : slabdata 1 1 0 > >inotify_inode_mark_entry 253 255 240 17 1 : tunables 0 0 0 : slabdata 15 15 0 > >shmem_inode_cache 2740 3003 1560 21 8 : tunables 0 0 0 : slabdata 143 143 0 > >sock_inode_cache 902 920 1408 23 8 : tunables 0 0 0 : slabdata 40 40 0 > >proc_inode_cache 3060 3075 1288 25 8 : tunables 0 0 0 : slabdata 123 123 0 > >inode_cache 9943 10192 1240 26 8 : tunables 0 0 0 : slabdata 392 392 0 > >selinux_inode_security 27237 27838 264 31 2 : tunables 0 0 0 : slabdata 898 898 0 > > > >So the iint_cache is a LOT larger than all of the inode caches put > >together. This is a 2.6.31-0.167.rc6.git6.fc12.x86_64 kernel without > >any kernel options. > > > >-Eric > > > > Sorry about the delay - we had a major fiber cut in Hawthorne yesterday. > I'm running 2.6.30.4, and here are my numbers, which look more reasonable. > I'm guessing there may be a IMA free imbalance in btrfs, which we have > not really tested. Are you getting imbalance messages?
I think I found it. http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/jmorris/security-testing-2.6.git;a=commitdiff;h=53a7197aff20e341487fca8575275056fe1c63e5
thanks!
-Eric
| |