[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080813173722.13c9c306@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 17:37:22 +0100
From: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, malware-list@...ts.printk.net,
andi@...stfloor.org, riel@...hat.com, greg@...ah.com,
tytso@....edu, viro@...IV.linux.org.uk, arjan@...radead.org,
peterz@...radead.org, hch@...radead.org
Subject: Re: TALPA - a threat model? well sorta.
On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 12:47:45 -0400
Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-08-13 at 17:24 +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > So, what is it that anti-malware companies do? They scan files. That's
> > > it.
> >
> > Good so lets instead have a discussion about making the file event
> > notification more scalable. That is the same thing I want for content
> > indexing. It is the same thing you want for certain kinds of smart
> > archiving, for on-line asynchronous backup and other stuff.
> >
> > It ought to be a simple clean syscall interface.
>
> Are you willing to make it blocking? I'm not sure how to make what we
> have capable of assuring that the object you got a notification about is
> actually the object you are acting on. Thoughts on how to accomplish
> that? I'm here to code and I'm willing to throw all my work in the
> garbage if someone can show me how to actually do it better.
I don't think you need to be blocking if you passed up a file handle ?
fd = fileeventmumble(somestuff);
do_stuff
close(fd);
[taking care not to end up recursing as a result]
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists