[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <904a8d17-b6df-e294-fcf6-6f95459e1ffa@themaw.net>
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2023 09:20:38 +0800
From: Ian Kent <raven@...maw.net>
To: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com>,
Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-api@...r.kernel.org, linux-man@...r.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, Karel Zak <kzak@...hat.com>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] quering mount attributes
On 14/9/23 14:47, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 6:22 PM Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@...hat.com> wrote:
>> Implement the mount querying syscalls agreed on at LSF/MM 2023. This is an
>> RFC with just x86_64 syscalls.
>>
>> Excepting notification this should allow full replacement for
>> parsing /proc/self/mountinfo.
> Since you mentioned notifications, I will add that the plan discussed
> in LFSMM was, once we have an API to query mount stats and children,
> implement fanotify events for:
> mount [mntuid] was un/mounted at [parent mntuid],[dirfid+name]
>
> As with other fanotify events, the self mntuid and dirfid+name
> information can be omitted and without it, multiple un/mount events
> from the same parent mntuid will be merged, allowing userspace
> to listmnt() periodically only mntuid whose child mounts have changed,
> with little risk of event queue overflow.
>
> The possible monitoring scopes would be the entire mount namespace
> of the monitoring program or watching a single mount for change in
> its children mounts. The latter is similar to inotify directory children watch,
> where the watches needs to be set recursively, with all the weight on
> userspace to avoid races.
It's been my belief that the existing notification mechanisms don't
quite fully satisfy the needs of users of these calls (aka. the need
I found when implementing David's original calls into systemd).
Specifically the ability to process a batch of notifications at once.
Admittedly the notifications mechanism that David originally implemented
didn't fully implement what I found I needed but it did provide for a
settable queue length and getting a batch of notifications at a time.
Am I mistaken in my belief?
Don't misunderstand me, it would be great for the existing notification
mechanisms to support these system calls, I just have a specific use case
in mind that I think is important, at least to me.
Ian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists