[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <cfec22b10811232108u3ade8b66w58999054c03549fc@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2008 21:08:05 -0800
From: "John McCutchan" <john@...nmccutchan.com>
To: "Evgeniy Polyakov" <zbr@...emap.net>
Cc: "Arnd Bergmann" <arnd@...db.de>, mtk.manpages@...il.com,
"Christoph Hellwig" <hch@....de>, "Robert Love" <rlove@...ve.org>,
linux-api@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [take 3] Use pid in inotify events.
At this point I don't really want to see changes made to inotify. But,
for arguments sake, why not something like inotify_init1 that takes a
flag EXTENDED_EVENT which causes a larger event structure to be used.
Something like,
struct inotify_event_extended
{
s32 wd;
u32 mask;
u32 cookie;
u32 data[4];
char path[0];
}
The data array could be used to store arbitrary extra information,
specified by flags.
On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 1:37 AM, Evgeniy Polyakov <zbr@...emap.net> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 07:39:45PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann (arnd@...db.de) wrote:
>> The how about an inotify_init1 flag telling the kernel to ignore
>> changes done by the current PID? That sounds like it is potentially
>> useful to other applications that want to monitor the whole file system
>> and also write to it. It also doesn't need to change the ABI in
>> incompatible ways or introduce a security relevant side channel.
>
> That's a good idea. Robert, John, Michael - comments?
>
> --
> Evgeniy Polyakov
>
--
John McCutchan <john@...nmccutchan.com>
--
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