lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Aug]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] allow disabling IMA at runtime
From
Date
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



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-08-27 15:01    [W:0.036 / U:0.112 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site