From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/11] IMA: use rbtree instead of radix tree for inode information cache Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 08:22:31 -0700 Message-ID: References: <20101025184118.20504.24290.stgit@paris.rdu.redhat.com> <19653.55494.240658.165153@quad.stoffel.home> <4CC5DCBB.1070505@kernel.org> <20101025205746.GA6568@infradead.org> <19654.57160.616600.480900@quad.stoffel.home> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: Christoph Hellwig , "J.H." , Eric Paris , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, zohar@us.ibm.com, david@fromorbit.com, jmorris@namei.org, kyle@mcmartin.ca, hpa@zytor.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, mingo@elte.hu, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk To: John Stoffel Return-path: Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:57744 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751123Ab0JZPXa (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Oct 2010 11:23:30 -0400 In-Reply-To: <19654.57160.616600.480900@quad.stoffel.home> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 7:01 AM, John Stoffel wrote: > > So the Kconfig should have 'default N' for IMA then? ALL new features should have "default n" for them. And if you had actually looked at it, you would see that it already has that ("n" is the default if no default is listed) _and_ it says "If unsure, say N" in the comments. So why the hell are people complaining about a patch-series that _clearly_ improves on the current situation? And yes, Fedora should never have enabled it. If the distro doesn't use a feature, it shouldn't be enabled, because it's inevitably just a source of problems. In this case, I think we should be happy that it was enabled just because it made people notice the problem, but at the same time the fact that Fedora enabled it is _not_ justification for then saying "well, if you enable it and don't use it, it must be zero-overhead". If you want zero overhead and you think nobody uses it (and that seems to be the _only_ logic the people complaining about it keep drumming on), then DON'T ENABLE IT, FOR CHRISSAKE! This thread has been a total waste of everybody's time. Did I miss any actual _constructive_ criticism of the patches? Is there any reason I shouldn't actually apply them? If there is, I've lost it in the roar of pointlessness. Linus