Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753099AbYJaTfe (ORCPT ); Fri, 31 Oct 2008 15:35:34 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751559AbYJaTf0 (ORCPT ); Fri, 31 Oct 2008 15:35:26 -0400 Received: from e35.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.153]:38456 "EHLO e35.co.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751284AbYJaTfZ (ORCPT ); Fri, 31 Oct 2008 15:35:25 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] integrity: Linux Integrity Module(LIM) From: Mimi Zohar To: Dave Hansen Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, James Morris , David Safford , Serge Hallyn , Mimi Zohar In-Reply-To: <1225471251.12673.408.camel@nimitz> References: <7c05f813215804a30d03821fd8e251b250d0e000.1223869200.git.zohar@localhost.localdomain> <1225471251.12673.408.camel@nimitz> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 15:35:22 -0400 Message-Id: <1225481722.21941.42.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.22.3.1 (2.22.3.1-1.fc9) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1353 Lines: 30 On Fri, 2008-10-31 at 09:40 -0700, Dave Hansen wrote: > On Mon, 2008-10-13 at 13:17 -0400, Mimi Zohar wrote: > > Concern was raised on the lkml mailing list, about adding i_integrity > > to the inode structure. This patch adds a comment clarifying that > > i_integrity is only included in the inode if INTEGRITY is configured. > > Mimi, it is nice that you made this a config option. That definitely > helps the embedded folks and those compiling their own kernels. But, it > doesn't really help those who run distros. > > The distributions basically ship one kernel for everybody, and it has to > have CONFIG_KITCHEN_SINK=y in order to support everyone's individual > users. Although you provided a config option, in practice, this always > bloats distro kernels which are the vast majority of users. Thank you for giving a more fuller explanation as to why extending the inode is such an issue. > Is this even useful for filesystems like proc or sysfs? Should we bloat > those inodes for a feature which might not possibly apply there? Currently, we're not measuring proc or sysfs files. Mimi -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/