| 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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2008 15:00:59 +0200 From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> To: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk> Cc: Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>, 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 Wednesday 13 August 2008, 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. In this case, it seems to be the same kind of requirement that lead to dnotify and inotify, right? So in order to get the third notification syscall interface right, the obvious questions are: 1. How do you make it cleaner than inotify? 2. How do you make it more scalable than inotify? 3. Do you need it to do anything that inotify doesn't do, beyond 1. and 2.? Arnd <>< -- 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