* Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 09:09:17PM -0400, Kyle McMartin wrote:
>
> > The Kconfig description sounds generally useful to me. If it's
> > bloated crap, how did it get merged?
>
> Just like all the other crap. It's been made pretty clear that "no"
> generally is not
* Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 02:10:29PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>
> > "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'
On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 09:09:17PM -0400, Kyle McMartin wrote:
> The Kconfig description sounds generally useful to me. If it's bloated
> crap, how did it get merged?
Just like all the other crap. It's been made pretty clear that "no"
generally is not an answer for a merge request. Just bikeshed
On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 08:49:45PM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 02:10:29PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > I'm confused ... what makes you think we are? This might have been an
> > unintentional misconfiguration...
>
> I didn't mean to imply you enabled it intention
On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 02:10:29PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> I'm confused ... what makes you think we are? This might have been an
> unintentional misconfiguration...
I didn't mean to imply you enabled it intentionally. In fact it looks
like the inode tracking in IMA is always on once it's
