[lkml]   [2008]   [Nov]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [take 3] Use pid in inotify events.
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 6:53 AM, Evgeniy Polyakov <> wrote:
> Hi Michael.
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 09:34:46AM -0500, Michael Kerrisk ( wrote:
>> > So effectively you propose to have second generation of the inotify
>> > which will have additional pid field, which will be unused by all but
>> > the same uid events?
>> I susepect that Christoph wants the same thing as I do: some thinking
>> towards a future-proof design, rather than a quick hack to address the needs
>> of a single application.
> So far the only real need is a pid. That will solve the cases I'm
> working on and it may be interesting for other applications. It is
> possible to extend read/write IO with offset and size parameters though.
> Do you see any other possible extensions?
>> > If you want to return -EPERM, than it will be _always_ returned for non
>> > sysadmin capable user, which effectively makes it unusable.
>> >
>> Again, appropriate flags in inotify_init1() could fix this -- e.g., only
>> fill the field (and give an error if no perms) if a flag is set.
> Um, hmm... Permission is _always_ denied for 'alien' IO, as it was
> pointed by Robert, at init time there is no way to know, will there be
> alien IO (i.e. originated by the process with different uid) or not.
> More on this: inotify initialization is just a memory allocation in
> the kernel, nothing more.
> We can argue about object insertion into inotify queue though. But
> again, we check already that it has read permissions, and if so, we are
> allowed to receive notificatons about IO against given target, since if
> new code will return for whatever reason -EPERM, people will use old
> code.
> So, putting PID/whatever else into event can be flag-driven, but there
> is no way to return EPERM anywhere in the call chain not breaking
> backward compatibility of the whole idea.

I really don't like the idea of overloading the cookie field to store
the pid for only the events that don't already use the cookie field.

Coming into this late, maybe I missed it but can you explain why you
need the pid that caused the event?

John McCutchan <>

 \ /
  Last update: 2008-11-20 23:37    [W:0.076 / U:1.456 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site