Re: [RFC][Patch 5/5]integrity: IMA as an integrity service provider

!MAILaRCHIVE_VOTE_RePLACE
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: Mimi Zohar <zohar@...>
Cc: <linux-kernel@...>, <safford@...>, <serue@...>, <sailer@...>, <zohar@...>, <sds@...>, <casey@...>
Date: Thursday, May 29, 2008 - 10:04 pm

On Thu, 29 May 2008 21:58:08 -0400 Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:


OK.

Before 2.6.17 it wouldn't have worked much at all on MAP_SHARED
modifications.

After 2.6.17 things will be better - we update the mtime on the
clean->dirty transitions of a page.  So the first modification after an
mmap will update the time.

Subsequent modifications via the mmap will not update the file time. 
Until something (usually pdflush) writes the page out.  Then the next
modification via mmap will cause another clean->dirty transition on the
page, hence another mtime update.

So there's a by-default 30-odd second uncertainty with MAP_SHARED
alterations.

--
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
Re: [RFC][Patch 5/5]integrity: IMA as an integrity service p..., Andrew Morton, (Thu May 29, 10:04 pm)