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

From: Michael Kerrisk
Date: Mon Nov 17 2008 - 12:23:22 EST


Hi Evgeniy,

On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 12:15 PM, Evgeniy Polyakov <zbr@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Michael.
>
> On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 11:59:11AM -0500, Michael Kerrisk (mtk.manpages@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) 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.
>
> 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.

> 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.

> 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.

> if I will spent a day and rewrite userspace report side to report new
> events I'm pretty sure there will be people, who will start complaining
> that again design does not match some theoretically perfect
> expectations,

Maybe. Mabe not. But that is (a necessary) part of the design process.

> and for the purpose of reporting origin's PID cookie
> fields can be reused since right now it is unused.

You didn't really respond to my earlier comment. Why are you doing
things this way. As far as I can see, only becuase it is quicker to
implement.

> Plus, if it is that hard to comment on patch which adds 14 (!) lines
> including blank, which feedback we should expect on larger one? :)

Still NAK, sorry.

Cheers,

Michael

--
Michael Kerrisk
Linux man-pages maintainer; http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/docs/man-pages/man-pages.git
man-pages online: http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/online_pages.html
Found a bug? http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/reporting_bugs.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/