Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/3] integrity: Linux Integrity Module(LIM) | From | Dave Hansen <> | Date | Fri, 31 Oct 2008 09:51:42 -0700 |
| |
On Tue, 2008-10-14 at 09:28 -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > --- a/include/linux/fs.h > > +++ b/include/linux/fs.h > > @@ -683,6 +683,9 @@ struct inode { > > #ifdef CONFIG_SECURITY > > void *i_security; > > #endif > > +#ifdef CONFIG_INTEGRITY > > + void *i_integrity; > > +#endif > > Sorry, but as said before bloating the inode for this is not an option. > Please use something like the MRU approach I suggested in the last > review round.
Why don't we just have a 'void *i_lots_of_bloat field', and let the security folks stick whatever they want in it? They can trade their i_security space for a new one. I know we want to conceptually separate security from integrity, so let's separate it:
struct i_bloat_inodes { #ifdef CONFIG_SECURITY void *i_security; #endif #ifdef CONFIG_INTEGRITY void *i_integrity; #endif };
By the way, if there's no TPM hardware, why would I want i_integrity anyway?
-- Dave
| |