From: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
To: James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>
Cc: "Kasatkin, Dmitry" <dmitry.kasatkin@intel.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-security-module <linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: IMA policy search speedup
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 05:46:51 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120919044651.GY13973@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LRH.2.02.1209191419410.29525@tundra.namei.org>
On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 02:21:56PM +1000, James Morris wrote:
> 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?
Per-superblock bit would be a bit better, but I really hate the way we have
them mixed up between superblock ->s_flags bits and mount(2) action weirdly
encoded into flags thing. If we are going to touch that thing, how about
separate S_... bits, with MS_... crap left only for mount(2) decoding? Mapped
to S_... when needed.
The really messy part is that right now we silently ignore all the unknown
bits in mount(2) flags argument ;-/ It's *not* a widely used syscall, but
still - changing that in a non-trivial way is potential userland breakage.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-09-19 4:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-09-18 9:44 IMA policy search speedup Kasatkin, Dmitry
2012-09-19 4:21 ` James Morris
2012-09-19 4:46 ` Al Viro [this message]
2012-09-19 10:50 ` Kasatkin, Dmitry
2012-09-19 10:25 ` Kasatkin, Dmitry
2012-09-19 20:07 ` J. Bruce Fields
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20120919044651.GY13973@ZenIV.linux.org.uk \
--to=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
--cc=dmitry.kasatkin@intel.com \
--cc=jmorris@namei.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).