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-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
