Messages in this thread |  | | | Subject | Re: fanotify: the fscking all notification system | | From | Eric Paris <> | | Date | Tue, 07 Jul 2009 16:57:11 -0400 |
| |
On Tue, 2009-07-07 at 15:41 -0400, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote: > On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 13:26:37 EDT, Eric Paris said:
> > 1) the fd the fanotify listener gets is O_RDONLY. I think I'll add an > > "f_flags" option which if 0 defaults to O_RDONLY|O_LARGEFILE like we > > have today but which you could use to indicate O_RDWR or O_WRONLY. We > > currently give O_RDONLY since you can't request O_WR* on files/libraries > > mapped exec, so this won't work for executables..... > > Having only O_RDONLY is a show-stopper, because then we can't replace the file > contents before continuing. For many places, the executables and shared > libraries aren't the problem, so "You can't HSM an executable" as a > semi-permanent restriction isn't too bad.
My current devel work allows you to set to open flags. So an HSM would use O_RDWR|O_LARGEFILE whereas a file scanner/indexer which cares about executables/libraries would use O_RDONLY|O_LARGEFILE. > > 2) Right now you have 5 seconds to answer an fanotify permissions > > request, if you don't get it in 5 seconds you are done and the original > > process gets an allow. But I have a half finished patch which would > > allow you to delay them infinitely. As long as you keep them delayed > > you can modify the file they are about to access however you like. > > That would work fine.
I've added the ability to delay indefinitely. Maybe your tape robot/intern is slow/busy. I'll point you to code when I want you to see it :)
> Yes, it's sounding like it. If that's in mainstream, then I can deploy an HSM > without needing kernel hackery like most do currently.
I'm trying to be useful!
-Eric
|  |