On Sun, 2010-10-17 at 13:02 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
quoted text
> On Sun, 2010-10-17 at 01:57 -0400, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> > On Sat, 2010-10-16 at 15:20 -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > 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.
> > > 
> > 
> > Can we keep this at the design level please? When IMA is enabled, it
> > needs to store information on a per inode basis, yet has to wait to
> > late_initcall() for the TPM, at which point some inodes would have
> > already been created.  
> 
> Being build (CONFIG_IMA=y) is not the same as default enabled. Is there
> a way to build this stuff and not have it enabled?

At one point there was a command line option, similar to
SECURITY_SELINUX_BOOTPARAM, to enable/disable IMA.  Based on review
here, it was removed.

Mimi

--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/