From: Andreas Gruenbacher <agruen@suse.de>
Organization: SUSE Labs / Novell
To: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>
Subject: Re: fanotify as syscalls
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 23:27:20 +0200
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.9
Cc: Eric Paris <eparis@redhat.com>,
       Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
       Evgeniy Polyakov <zbr@ioremap.net>, David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
       netdev@vger.kernel.org, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, alan@linux.intel.com,
       hch@infradead.org
References: <20090912094110.GB24709@ioremap.net> <200909212204.51077.agruen@suse.de> <20090921202823.GB14700@shareable.org>
In-Reply-To: <20090921202823.GB14700@shareable.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200909212327.20978.agruen@suse.de>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 934
Lines: 19

On Monday, 21 September 2009 22:28:23 Jamie Lokier wrote:
> It would be logical if fanotify could block and ack those [mount & umount
> events] in the same way as it can block and ack other accesses (with the
> usual filtering rules on which inodes trigger events, and which don't or are
> cached).

Hmm. To me, fanotify is about file contents first of all: this is what 
fanotify wants to be able to veto. Directory events seem reasonable to add 
for inotify compatibility, but I see no need for access decisions on them. 
Even less so for mounts and unmounts. (Besides, we can't hold any vfs locks 
while asking fanotify so those operations wouldn't be atomic, anyway.)

Thanks,
Andreas
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/