From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752189AbYKXFIT (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Nov 2008 00:08:19 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750719AbYKXFII (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Nov 2008 00:08:08 -0500 Received: from rv-out-0506.google.com ([209.85.198.236]:2690 "EHLO rv-out-0506.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750704AbYKXFIH (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Nov 2008 00:08:07 -0500 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2008 21:08:05 -0800 From: "John McCutchan" To: "Evgeniy Polyakov" Subject: Re: [take 3] Use pid in inotify events. Cc: "Arnd Bergmann" , mtk.manpages@gmail.com, "Christoph Hellwig" , "Robert Love" , linux-api@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Andrew Morton" In-Reply-To: <20081122093749.GA12543@ioremap.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20081120230612.GB6536@ioremap.net> <200811211939.46812.arnd@arndb.de> <20081122093749.GA12543@ioremap.net> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org At this point I don't really want to see changes made to inotify. But, for arguments sake, why not something like inotify_init1 that takes a flag EXTENDED_EVENT which causes a larger event structure to be used. Something like, struct inotify_event_extended { s32 wd; u32 mask; u32 cookie; u32 data[4]; char path[0]; } The data array could be used to store arbitrary extra information, specified by flags. On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 1:37 AM, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote: > On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 07:39:45PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann (arnd@arndb.de) wrote: >> The how about an inotify_init1 flag telling the kernel to ignore >> changes done by the current PID? That sounds like it is potentially >> useful to other applications that want to monitor the whole file system >> and also write to it. It also doesn't need to change the ABI in >> incompatible ways or introduce a security relevant side channel. > > That's a good idea. Robert, John, Michael - comments? > > -- > Evgeniy Polyakov > -- John McCutchan