From: hooanon05@yahoo.co.jp
Subject: Re: [PATCH] integrity: add ima_counts_put (updated) 
To: Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>,
       David Safford <safford@watson.ibm.com>, Mimi Zohar <zohar@us.ibm.com>
In-Reply-To: <1246286783.4054.56.camel@dyn9002018117.watson.ibm.com>
References: <1246029874-6860-1-git-send-email-zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1246039527.4809.18.camel@dyn9002018117.watson.ibm.com> <12000.1246284749@jrobl> <1246286783.4054.56.camel@dyn9002018117.watson.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 05:36:29 +0900
Message-ID: <7959.1246307789@jrobl>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 797
Lines: 19


Mimi Zohar:
> This suggestion has been mentioned before; and yes would definitely
> resolve the annoying imbalance and iint_free() messages.  But
> incrementing/decrementing the pointers automatically each time a file is
> opened/closed would defeat their purpose - alerting us that a file was
> possibly not measured before being read/executed. 

I may be wrong since I don't fully understand IMA's purpose, but why did
you create ima_counts_get() and make it call after dentry_open() in
nfsd_open()? Isn't it same thing essentially?


J. R. Okajima
--
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/