[lkml]   [2010]   [Oct]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: ima: use of radix tree cache indexing == massive waste of memory?
On Sat, 2010-10-16 at 15:20 -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Besides the algorithmic problems with ima, why is using
> IMA to start with? Except for IBM looking for a reason to jusity why
> TPM isn't a completely waster of ressources it's pointless. And it was
> only merged under the premise that it would not affect innocent normal
> users.

Can we keep this at the design level please? When IMA is enabled, it
needs to store information on a per inode basis, yet has to wait to
late_initcall() for the TPM, at which point some inodes would have
already been created. For this reason, there is a two step
initialization process, one which allocates the iints at
security_initcall() and the other which enables IMA at late_initcall().
Instead of actually allocating the iints, between security_initcall()
and late_initcall(), the original design maintained a list of inodes and
only allocated the iints if/when IMA was enabled. This design was
rejected way back when.

As for using a radix tree, that was what you recommended.


 \ /
  Last update: 2010-10-17 08:01    [W:0.096 / U:0.040 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site