On Tue, 2009-08-04 at 17:09 +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: > Hi Eric, all, > > On Friday 24 July 2009 21:13:49 Eric Paris wrote: > > 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 > > Would it make more sense to deny on timeouts and then evict? I am thinking it > would be more secure with no significant drawbacks. Also for usages like HSM > allowing it without data being in place might present wrong content to the > user. I'd be willing to go that route as long as noone else complains. > > The only other current interface is the ability to ignore events by > > superblock magic number. This makes it easy to ignore all events > > in /proc which can be difficult to accomplish firing FANOTIFY_SET_MARK > > with ignored_masks over and over as processes are created and destroyed. > > Just to double-check, that would also work for any other filesystem and is > controllable from userspace? Yes you set these in userspace using setsockopt(). It is based on superblock magic number as found in linux/magic.h. So one could exclude, procfs, sysfs, selinuxfs, etc. It does not provide a way to say 'this ext3 filesystem but not that ext3 filesystem' as ext3 has a single magic number. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
