Re: fanotify - overall design before I start sending patches

[Tvrtko Ursulin]

On Wednesday 05 August 2009 03:05:34 Pavel Machek wrote:
> BTW my -@xxxxxxx address no longer works. pavel@xxxxxx should be ok.
>
> > If a FAN_ACCESS_PERM or FAN_OPEN_PERM event is received the listener
> > must send a response before the 5 second timeout.  If no response is
> > sent before the 5 second timeout the original operation is allowed.  If
> > this happens too many times (10 in a row) the fanotify group is evicted
> > from the kernel and will not get any new events.  Sending a response is
> > done using the setsockopt() call with the socket options set to
> > FANOTIFY_ACCESS_RESPONSE.  The buffer should contain a structure like:
>
> The timeout part of interface is very ugly. Will fanotify users have
> to be realtime/mlocked?

Why do you think it is very ugly?

Just to make sure you haven't missed this - it is not that they have to 
complete the whole operation before the timeout period (since you mention 
realtime/mlock I suspect this is what you think?), but _during_ the operation 
they have to show that they are active by sending something like keep alive 
messages.

Or you are worried about failing to meet even that on a loaded system? There 
has to be something like this otherwise hung userspace client would kill the 
whole system.

Tvrtko
--
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/