Re: [PATCH 00/02] Process Events Connector

[Matt Helsley <matthltc@us.ibm.com>]

On Tue, 2005-10-25 at 17:34 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 25, 2005 at 05:07:40PM -0700, Matt Helsley wrote:
> > Andrew, all,
> > 
> > 	Is there any reason this patch could not go for a spin in a -mm tree?
> > It's similar to Guillaume's fork connector patch which did appear in -mm
> > at one point. It replaces the fork_advisor patch that ELSA is currently
> > using, can be used by userspace CKRM code, and in general is useful for
> > anything that may wish to monitor changes in all processes.
> 
> Why can't you use a lsm module for this instead?  It looks like you are
> wanting to hook things in pretty much the same places we currently have
> the lsm hooks at.
> 
> thanks,
> 
> greg k-h

	Guillaume apparently tried to use LSM for his fork connector and was
told "this doesn't belong here":

http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0502.2/1000.html

	This patch does not affect whether or not these operations succeed and
hence is a poor match for LSM even though it hooks into the same places
in the kernel.

	There has been some discussion on lse-tech about 'task_notifiers' that
would allow multiple modules to hook into these paths without polluting
the paths themselves. I modified the patch with these proposals in mind.
Then, assuming such an interface developed, I could submit a small patch
which would convert to using the new interface.

	Would you still rather see the patch as an LSM module?

Thanks,
	-Matt Helsley
	< matthltc @ us.ibm.com >