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

Christoph Hellwig
2008-11-18T13:20:10Z

On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 11:59:11AM -0500, Michael Kerrisk wrote:
> NAK. If we are going to do this -- and I leave the security
> discussions to others more knowlegeable on that score than me -- then
> the API design should be better than this. The current design is a
> hack. Why exclude rename events? Why re-use the cookie field? The
> only answers I can guess at are that the current patch is less work to
> write. IMO, there are (much) better design possibilities, using
> inotify1(), as I suggested earlier in this thread.

Yes, this kind of thing should be enable using an flag to inotify1, and
be consistant even for rename. Doing it as a flag to inotify1 also has
the advantage to be able to return an -EPERM when the feature is
requested but not allowed instead of letting applications that assume it
silently fail.