linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] notification tree

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]

Message-ID: <20100807205509.GY2927@count0.beaverton.ibm.com>
Date:	Sat, 7 Aug 2010 13:55:10 -0700
From:	Matt Helsley <matthltc@...ibm.com>
To:	Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>
Cc:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Matt Helsley <matthltc@...ibm.com>,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] notification tree - try 37!

On Sat, Aug 07, 2010 at 03:15:14PM -0400, Eric Paris wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-08-06 at 20:06 -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 06, 2010 at 04:34:31PM -0700, Matt Helsley wrote:
> > > On Fri, Aug 06, 2010 at 11:58:39AM -0400, Eric Paris wrote:
> > > > Here it is again!  Another notification pull request!  There is still
> > > > future work to be done on notification, but nothing that I believe
> > > > others would call blocking or functional.  The work I plan to do
> > > > includes:
> > > > 
> > > > 1) Al has discussed the addition of a file_clone() call in the VFS which
> > > > would eliminate my use of __dentry_open() and would allow the removal of
> > > > the rather hideous FMODE_/O_NONOTIFY.
> > > 
> > > I did a quick search and can't find a mailing list post on this. Was
> > > it a private discussion or is there something I can read about what
> > > file_clone() will do?
> 
> No, it was from a face to face meeting and a couple of irc conversations
> talk about all of this stuff.  My understanding was that it was going to
> be a lot like dentry_open() only it was going to require a valid struct
> file and would return a new struct file.  One of the purposes of the new
> interface being the ability to set f_mode at a better time to eliminate
> the FMODE/O_ overlapping horror that fanotify requires to prevent
> recursion and deadlock.

Thanks Eric, that's the information I was looking for. I was curious
because there's a chance file_clone() as you described it may also be useful
for checkpoint/restart.

Cheers,
	-Matt Helsley
--
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/