| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20150924080003.GA21612@quack.suse.cz> Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2015 10:00:03 +0200 From: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz> To: Patrick Puzik <p.puzik91@...il.com> Cc: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Josef Bacik <jbacik@...com>, Dave Chinner <dchinner@...hat.com>, Nikolay Borisov <kernel@...p.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Patrick Puzik <p.puzi91@...il.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add FS_CLOSE_READ and FS_CLOSE_NOREAD flag to fsnotify On Wed 23-09-15 20:32:02, Patrick Puzik wrote: > 1)They should be additionly sent. But at this point in time, there is > no possibility to get directly notified if a readable writable was > closed. Using these flags in combination with the existing ones is a > way to handle this lack of functionality. > > 2) I currently don't have an application that uses this new > functionality, but it may come to an aid in the future for some > developers who would find it avaiable whenever they need it. > They can spare time and effort, don't you think? > > In my opinion it would be better to have a: > 1- CLOSE_READ > 2- CLOSE_WRITE > 3- CLOSE_READ_WRITE > flag or so but I guess this wouldn't be possible because of compability > issues. right? You are right that it isn't possible to find out from the CLOSE_WRITE or CLOSE_NOWRITE event whether the closed descriptor was readable or not. However we don't merge new features in the kernel just because someone may find some use for them. Usually we want to have at least a good idea what the feature would be useful for (if not directly application that wants to use such feature). For example distinguishing between writeable and non-writeable desriptors is useful for applications like virus scanners or caching daemons which can recheck the file after writeable descriptor is closed (and don't have to burn the cpu when non-writeable descriptor was closed). But for readable vs non-readable descriptor I fail to see the usefulness... After all fsnotify interface is about notification about changes in the filesystem and readable vs non-readable is irelevant to that. So unless someone comes up with a reasonable justification, I'm against merging such feature just because it can be implemented. Honza > On Tue, 2015-09-22 at 11:06 +0200, Jan Kara wrote: > > On Sun 20-09-15 23:07:35, Patrick Puzik wrote: > > > Attached is a patch which is a preparation for the later support of > > > an > > > event notification, when an unreadable or readable file was closed. > > > > So I'm missing two things in this patch (or rather changelog): > > > > 1) When should these events be generated? I can kind of infer this > > from the > > comment and event name but for example FS_CLOSE_WRITE and > > FS_CLOSE_NOWRITE > > are exclusive. I suppose we will generate FS_CLOSE_READ or > > FS_CLOSE_NOREAD > > in addition to that? > > > > 2) What is the use case? I.e. what is your application doing that > > current > > notification events are not enough? > > > > Honza > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Patrick Puzik <p.puzik91@...il.com> > > > --- > > > include/linux/fsnotify_backend.h | 12 ++++++++---- > > > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/include/linux/fsnotify_backend.h > > > b/include/linux/fsnotify_backend.h > > > index 533c440..7563679 100644 > > > --- a/include/linux/fsnotify_backend.h > > > +++ b/include/linux/fsnotify_backend.h > > > @@ -28,6 +28,8 @@ > > > #define FS_ATTRIB 0x00000004 /* Metadata > > > changed */ > > > #define FS_CLOSE_WRITE 0x00000008 /* > > > Writtable file was closed */ > > > #define FS_CLOSE_NOWRITE 0x00000010 /* Unwrittable > > > file closed */ > > > +#define FS_CLOSE_READ 0x00000011 /* Unreadable file > > > closed */ > > > +#define FS_CLOSE_NOREAD 0x00000012 /* Readable file > > > was closed */ > > > #define FS_OPEN 0x00000020 /* File > > > was opened */ > > > #define FS_MOVED_FROM 0x00000040 /* File was > > > moved from X */ > > > #define FS_MOVED_TO 0x00000080 /* File was > > > moved to Y */ > > > @@ -56,9 +58,10 @@ > > > > > > /* This is a list of all events that may get sent to a parernt > > > based on fs event > > > * happening to inodes inside that directory */ > > > -#define FS_EVENTS_POSS_ON_CHILD (FS_ACCESS | FS_MODIFY | > > > FS_ATTRIB |\ > > > - FS_CLOSE_WRITE | > > > FS_CLOSE_NOWRITE | FS_OPEN |\ > > > - FS_MOVED_FROM | FS_MOVED_TO | > > > FS_CREATE |\ > > > +#define FS_EVENTS_POSS_ON_CHILD (FS_ACCESS | FS_MODIFY | > > > FS_ATTRIB | \ > > > + FS_CLOSE_WRITE | > > > FS_CLOSE_NOWRITE | \ > > > + FS_CLOSE_READ | FS_CLOSE_NOREAD > > > | FS_OPEN | \ > > > + FS_MOVED_FROM | FS_MOVED_TO | > > > FS_CREATE | \ > > > FS_DELETE | FS_OPEN_PERM | > > > FS_ACCESS_PERM) > > > > > > #define FS_MOVE (FS_MOVED_FROM | > > > FS_MOVED_TO) > > > @@ -66,7 +69,8 @@ > > > #define ALL_FSNOTIFY_PERM_EVENTS (FS_OPEN_PERM | FS_ACCESS_PERM) > > > > > > #define ALL_FSNOTIFY_EVENTS (FS_ACCESS | FS_MODIFY | FS_ATTRIB | \ > > > - FS_CLOSE_WRITE | FS_CLOSE_NOWRITE | > > > FS_OPEN | \ > > > + FS_CLOSE_WRITE | FS_CLOSE_NOWRITE | \ > > > + FS_CLOSE_READ | FS_CLOSE_NOREAD | > > > FS_OPEN | \ > > > FS_MOVED_FROM | FS_MOVED_TO | > > > FS_CREATE | \ > > > FS_DELETE | FS_DELETE_SELF | > > > FS_MOVE_SELF | \ > > > FS_UNMOUNT | FS_Q_OVERFLOW | > > > FS_IN_IGNORED | \ > > > -- > > > 2.4.3 > > > > > > > -- Jan Kara <jack@...e.com> SUSE Labs, CR -- 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