From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754528Ab0JPVLe (ORCPT ); Sat, 16 Oct 2010 17:11:34 -0400 Received: from terminus.zytor.com ([198.137.202.10]:57159 "EHLO mail.zytor.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753341Ab0JPVLd (ORCPT ); Sat, 16 Oct 2010 17:11:33 -0400 X-User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android References: <20101016065206.GO4681@dastard> <20101016192027.GA6883@infradead.org> In-Reply-To: <20101016192027.GA6883@infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: ima: use of radix tree cache indexing == massive waste of memory? From: "H. Peter Anvin" Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2010 14:10:29 -0700 To: Christoph Hellwig , Dave Chinner CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Mimi Zohar , warthog9@kernel.org, devel@lists.fedoraprojet.org Message-ID: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org I'm confused ... what makes you think we are? This might have been an unintentional misconfiguration... "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. > -- Sent from my mobile phone. Please pardon any lack of formatting.