Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [patch] inotify, improved. | From | Valdis.Kletnieks@vt ... | Date | Fri, 17 Jun 2005 12:11:15 -0400 |
| |
On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 11:44:38 EDT, Robert Love said: > I have been hesitant, though. I do not want feature creep to be a > deterrent to acceptance into the Linux kernel. I also think that there > could be arguments about security. Sending the event is one thing, > telling which pid (and thus what user, etc.) caused the event is > another. For example, we can make the argument that read rights on a > file are tantamount to the right to receive a read event. But can we > say that read rights are enough for a unprivileged user to know that > root at pid 820 is writing the file? I don't know.
It's also racy as hell. By the time the inotify gets delivered to the userspace process, pid 820 may be long gone..... [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |