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:1.610 / U:0.064 seconds]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site