Omen Wild wrote: >Let me back up a step, maybe I am approaching this from the wrong >direction. After I calculate a SHA1 for a file I would like to cache >success. Until the file gets altered the result will be the same. So, >my thought was that if I can catch all paths that write to the file and >invalidate my cache flag, I can save a lot of unnecessary work. Well, I guess my reaction is that it might be time to re-consider that approach, in light of the points raised here. For what it's worth, I'm personally not convinced your approach is going to be workable. My fear is that there are so many paths of this form that it's going to be hard to cover them all. My fear is that trying to shoehorn your code into the existing Linux buffer/file caches may be doomed to failure, because the purpose those caches were designed for is very different from your goals. I don't think this is a LSM issue. In short, I am somewhat skeptical about whether your proposed approach is going to attain the security goals you seek. _______________________________________________ linux-security-module mailing list linux-security-moduleat_private http://mail.wirex.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-security-module
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Jul 28 2003 - 13:20:46 PDT