Messages in this thread |  | | | Subject | Re: TALPA - a threat model? well sorta. | | From | Eric Paris <> | | Date | Wed, 13 Aug 2008 13:00:33 -0400 |
| |
On Wed, 2008-08-13 at 17:37 +0100, Alan Cox wrote: > On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 12:47:45 -0400 > Eric Paris <eparis@redhat.com> wrote: > > > On Wed, 2008-08-13 at 17:24 +0100, Alan Cox wrote: > > > > So, what is it that anti-malware companies do? They scan files. That's > > > > it. > > > > > > Good so lets instead have a discussion about making the file event > > > notification more scalable. That is the same thing I want for content > > > indexing. It is the same thing you want for certain kinds of smart > > > archiving, for on-line asynchronous backup and other stuff. > > > > > > It ought to be a simple clean syscall interface. > > > > Are you willing to make it blocking? I'm not sure how to make what we > > have capable of assuring that the object you got a notification about is > > actually the object you are acting on. Thoughts on how to accomplish > > that? I'm here to code and I'm willing to throw all my work in the > > garbage if someone can show me how to actually do it better. > > I don't think you need to be blocking if you passed up a file handle ?
Without blocking and waiting how do you deny access? Maybe I needed another thing they do. "They do file scanning and deny access to bad files."
async scanning on close/write is great. but you need blocking/access control on open/read..... > fd = fileeventmumble(somestuff); > do_stuff > close(fd); > > [taking care not to end up recursing as a result]
[you pointed out the whole point of process exclusions in the original work]
|  |