From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754087Ab0JPTUc (ORCPT ); Sat, 16 Oct 2010 15:20:32 -0400 Received: from canuck.infradead.org ([134.117.69.58]:50368 "EHLO canuck.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753682Ab0JPTUb (ORCPT ); Sat, 16 Oct 2010 15:20:31 -0400 Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2010 15:20:27 -0400 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Dave Chinner Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Mimi Zohar , warthog9@kernel.org, hpa@zytor.com, devel@lists.fedoraprojet.org Subject: Re: ima: use of radix tree cache indexing == massive waste of memory? Message-ID: <20101016192027.GA6883@infradead.org> References: <20101016065206.GO4681@dastard> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20101016065206.GO4681@dastard> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-08-17) X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by canuck.infradead.org See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Besides the algorithmic problems with ima, why is kernel.org using IMA to start with? Except for IBM looking for a reason to jusity why TPM isn't a completely waster of ressources it's pointless. And it was only merged under the premise that it would not affect innocent normal users.