[lkml]   [2009]   [Aug]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: fanotify - overall design before I start sending patches
On Tue, 2009-08-04 at 17:09 +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
> Hi Eric, all,
> On Friday 24 July 2009 21:13:49 Eric Paris wrote:
> > If a FAN_ACCESS_PERM or FAN_OPEN_PERM event is received the listener
> > must send a response before the 5 second timeout. If no response is
> > sent before the 5 second timeout the original operation is allowed. If
> > this happens too many times (10 in a row) the fanotify group is evicted
> > from the kernel and will not get any new events. Sending a response is
> Would it make more sense to deny on timeouts and then evict? I am thinking it
> would be more secure with no significant drawbacks. Also for usages like HSM
> allowing it without data being in place might present wrong content to the
> user.

I'd be willing to go that route as long as noone else complains.

> > The only other current interface is the ability to ignore events by
> > superblock magic number. This makes it easy to ignore all events
> > in /proc which can be difficult to accomplish firing FANOTIFY_SET_MARK
> > with ignored_masks over and over as processes are created and destroyed.
> Just to double-check, that would also work for any other filesystem and is
> controllable from userspace?

Yes you set these in userspace using setsockopt(). It is based on
superblock magic number as found in linux/magic.h. So one could
exclude, procfs, sysfs, selinuxfs, etc. It does not provide a way to
say 'this ext3 filesystem but not that ext3 filesystem' as ext3 has a
single magic number.

 \ /
  Last update: 2009-08-04 18:31    [W:0.199 / U:1.800 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site