Re: [PATCH 2/3] integrity: Linux Integrity Module(LIM)

[Mimi Zohar]

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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/