Subject: Re: LKM support
To: Michael Graff <>
From: Bill Studenmund <>
List: tech-kern
Date: 11/08/1996 18:58:04
On 8 Nov 1996, Michael Graff wrote:

> Bill Studenmund <> writes:
> Also, it was pointed out after talking to a coworker that remembering
> the exact state of the inode might be good enough.  That would remove the
> need for MD5 in the kernel, although I can see a use for MD5 in other things
> as well, like tcp sequence numbers...

Hmm. Would looking at the inode start adding a subtle dependency on the
underlying fs? Maybe it's no big deal, but MD5 sounds like a beter
solution (you don't really care about the inode, you care that you don't
load a bad lkm). Or say you accidentally restore old files? Could that
change the inode?

Take care,