Re: [PATCH 06/11] IMA: use i_writecount rather than a private counter

[H. Peter Anvin]

On 10/26/2010 06:53 AM, John Stoffel wrote:
> 
> No.  What I was trying to get at, and probably poorly, was the comment
> you made about having to keep the IMA data structures around, even if
> IMA has been disabled, so that you could continue to claim integrity
> if IMA was re-enabled.
> 
> So my question is really about the following situation:
> 
> 1.  System boots up, IMA is enabled.
> 2.  SysAdmin notices and turns it off.
>     - does the IMA overhead (not the per-inode 4 bytes) go away?
>     - do the various in memory data structures get freed?
>     - does the pointer in the inode get null'ed?
> 

I think it's reasonable to require a reboot in this case.

	-hpa
--
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/