lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Nov]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [more markup]  [less markup]  [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
DateTue, 18 Nov 2008 14:19:37 +0100
FromChristoph Hellwig <>
SubjectRe: [take 3] Use pid in inotify events.
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 11:59:11AM -0500, Michael Kerrisk wrote:
> NAK.  If we are going to do this -- and I leave the security
> discussions to others more knowlegeable on that score than me -- then
> the API design should be better than this.  The current design is a
> hack.  Why exclude rename events?  Why re-use the cookie field?  The
> only answers I can guess at are that the current patch is less work to
> write.  IMO, there are (much) better design possibilities, using
> inotify1(), as I suggested earlier in this thread.

Yes, this kind of thing should be enable using an flag to inotify1, and
be consistant even for rename.  Doing it as a flag to inotify1 also has
the advantage to be able to return an -EPERM when the feature is
requested but not allowed instead of letting applications that assume it
silently fail.



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-11-18 14:23    [from the cache]
©2003-2008