Re: [PATCH] integrity: fix IMA inode leak

[Linus Torvalds]

On Sun, 7 Jun 2009, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> 
> Mandatory Access Control(MAC) modules (i.e. SELinux, smack, etc) and
> integrity (i.e IMA) are two different aspects of security.  The LSM
> hooks, which includes security_inode_free(), are used to implement MAC,
> not integrity.

So?

It's under security/integrity. And it's a level of detail that fs/inode.c 
really doesn't care about.

The VFS layer cares NOT AT ALL about your "different aspects of security", 
nor should it. The fact that security people think SELinux and IMA are 
different is irrelavant - fs/inode.c just doesn't care. Why should it?

		Linus
--
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/