[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.0909231025120.22657@makko.or.mcafeemobile.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 10:31:26 -0700 (PDT)
From: Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>
To: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@...hos.com>
cc: Andreas Gruenbacher <agruen@...e.de>,
Jamie Lokier <jamie@...reable.org>,
Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Evgeniy Polyakov <zbr@...emap.net>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"viro@...iv.linux.org.uk" <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
"alan@...ux.intel.com" <alan@...ux.intel.com>,
"hch@...radead.org" <hch@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: fanotify as syscalls
On Wed, 23 Sep 2009, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
> Yeah, you could do something like kauth on OSX, which is I guess similar to
> LSM, which was turned off for out of tree. And now you want to push users of
> fanotify out of tree, so what should it be? In tree bad, out of tree bad?
As I said before, the good of a syscall tracing approach, is that it is a
completely generic mechanism (extensible for other kind of hooks too),
with minimal kernel impact, while allowing its module-users to stuff all
the code they want in the part that it's their responsibility.
So that a "we need this too" gets translated to "just do it in your code",
instead of a request to add more stuff into the kernel, and maybe altering
the userspace access interface (which is always painful).
- Davide
--
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