linux-kernel - Re: [take2] Inotify: nested attributes support.

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 26 Nov 2008 23:17:28 +1030
From:	David Newall <davidn@...idnewall.com>
To:	Evgeniy Polyakov <zbr@...emap.net>
CC:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, john@...nmccutchan.com,
	arnd@...db.de, mtk.manpages@...il.com, hch@....de, rlove@...ve.org,
	linux-api@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	pavel@...e.cz, Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [take2] Inotify: nested attributes support.

Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 12:15:38AM -0800, Andrew Morton (akpm@...ux-foundation.org) wrote:
>   
>> This still doesn't provide a reason for anyone to be interested in the
>> code!  Why do we want pids in inotify messages?
>>     
>  
> my application has to
> differentiate IO made by itself and any IO made by system (another
> users, crons, whatever else)

I don't think so.  As discussed,
(http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=122735413932519), you already can
differentiate I/O made by local users, so you don't need to modify inotify.

This change violates my first rule of programming: If there's two or
more ways of solving a problem, pick one; don't pick them all.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/