lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Aug]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    SubjectRe: TALPA - a threat model? well sorta.
    From
    Date
    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]



    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2008-08-13 19:03    [W:0.024 / U:30.644 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site