[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2019 23:38:01 +0100
From: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc: dhowells@...hat.com, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>,
Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
USB list <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>, raven@...maw.net,
Linux FS Devel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-block@...r.kernel.org, keyrings@...r.kernel.org,
LSM List <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 00/10] Mount, FS, Block and Keyrings notifications [ver #3]
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> wrote:
> I mean: are there cases where some action generates a notification but does
> not otherwise have an effect visible to the users who can receive the
> notification. It looks like the answer is probably “no”, which is good.
mount_notify(). You can get a notification that someone altered the mount
topology (eg. by mounting something). A process receiving a notification
could then use fsinfo(), say, to reread the mount topology tree, find out
where the new mount is and wander over there to have a look - assuming they
have the permissions for pathwalk to succeed.
David
Powered by blists - more mailing lists