Re: [take 3] Use pid in inotify events.

Pavel Machek
2008-11-21T13:57:40Z

On Mon 2008-11-17 20:52:12, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 12:23:01PM -0500, Michael Kerrisk (mtk.manpages@googlemail.com) wrote:
> > > Cookie was created to store information used to somehow connect events to
> > > each other. PID does that from another angle than rename.
> >
> > Yes, but it does it in an inconsistent, incomplete way.
>
> It was not my decision, I can not argue if it could be good, bad, perfect
> or shine. It is what we have, and I'm trying to extend it not breaking
> other things up.
>
> > > Extending
> > > (rewriting userspace event processing part) events is a solution for the
> > > new project,
> >
> > Not quite sure of your point here. Whatever change is made, userspace
> > apps will need to be trained to understand the interface.
>
> I mean kernel event generation side will have to be rewritten: new
> event structures, new members, new field usage scenario and so on.
>
> > > while existing patch (where all security concerns are
> > > resolved) is a minimum functionality extension.
> >
> > It is a minimum functionality extension that serves the needs of one
> > or a few projects, while dirtying the design for all users.
>
> Yes, this is a minimum functionality extension, which breaks nothing.
> That's why it is a good idea, but I agree that there may be better than
> just a good idea and implementation :)

Breaks nothing?!

Introducing ugly hack with broken permission check we have to maintain
forever seems like way too much breakage for 14 lines.

> And I actually answered, that this may be a good idea for the new
> project. Although if things work right now no one will ever try to
> change it. It does not work in my case, so I need to invent as simple
> as possible way to fix it.

'as simple diff as possible' is pretty bad criterium for kernel
merges.

Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html