Messages in this thread | | | From | Tvrtko Ursulin <> | Subject | Re: fanotify - overall design before I start sending patches | Date | Tue, 4 Aug 2009 17:09:50 +0100 |
| |
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.
> 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?
Tvrtko
| |