Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 19 Sep 2012 14:21:56 +1000 (EST) | From | James Morris <> | Subject | Re: IMA policy search speedup |
| |
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012, Kasatkin, Dmitry wrote:
> I looked to <linux/fs.h> and found that there is a possibility to to > add additional flag for sb->s_flags. > For example > > #define MS_NOT_IMA (1<<25) /* NOT_IMA */ > #define IS_I_NOT_IMA(inode) __IS_FLG(inode, MS_NOT_IMA) > > > Another way is to add additional dedicated integrity related member to > the sb structure. > struct super_block { > ... > #ifdef CONFIG_INTEGRITY > int s_integrity; > #endif > }; > > Obviously there are only few super blocks in the system and few bytes > will not harm.
The flag seems better than adding a new struct member. Why would you need an int for this?
- James -- James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>
| |