Re: [2.6.16-rc5-m3 PATCH] inotify: add the monitor for the event source

[Yi Yang <yang.y.yi@gmail.com>]

Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > > it breaks ABI because this structure is communicated to userspace, and
> > > you change both the layout and the size of it. What else would ABI
> > > mean??
> > >   
> > >       
> > Many structures exported to user space in kernel  are undergoing some 
> > change, A good application shouldn't count on invariability forever,
> > My test application hasn't any problem before change and after change.
> >     
>
>
> this is absolutely incorrect. This is an ABI that cannot change in any
> incompatible way.
>   
> > > but... what makes you think it's not a kernel thread such as kjournald?
> > > (which have basically meaningless current)
> > >   
> > >       
> > you can get  values of these fields without any problem for kernel 
> > thread although they are useless.
> >     
>
> exactly
>
>   
> > > there is no "full path name" concept in linux like that. And even worse,
> > > many processes will not have *any* path because they have been deleted,
> > > especially the viruses will use this ;)
> > >   
> > >       
> > For this case you said, this patch has now way really, do you have a 
> > good way to handle this case?
> >     
>
> it sounds that what you want to achieve is broken in the first place...
> (or should use audit etc)
>   
As I known, BSD process audit only can be done inside a process, and 
audit result is just visible after
termination of this process, if an application wants to monitor all the 
processes, it has no way. My patch
provides such a way bases on inotify with minimal work, it should be an 
good extension for
inotify although it can't cover all the cases.
>   

-
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/