On Fri 2009-08-07 13:43:10, Eric Paris wrote: > On Fri, 2009-08-07 at 18:36 +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > > On Thu, 06 Aug 2009, Eric Paris wrote: > > > just work. The whole reason for the timeout is because I don't trust > > > userspace not to get it wrong and I'd rather not lose my box because of > > > it. > > > > IMO this has nothing to do with userspace(*) and everything to do with > > complexity. Virus scanning is complex and any such code, whether > > runing in userspace or not, can easily screw up and freeze the system. > > I agree, 'userspace' was not the best term. Let me rephrase: > > "The whole reason for the timeout is because I don't trust anything not > to get it wrong and I'd rather not lose my box because of it." > > > The way to solve that is not to implement hacks on the kernel > > interface, but rather by separating the complex parts and implementing > > a simple watchdog layer on top of that, that makes sure things don't > > go wrong. > > So you would argue that every fanotify listener implement their own > watchdog layer that may or may not be correct rather than do a single > watchdog layer for everyone? And that's better? Yes. (You can do library, and maybe you can just make fanotify listener simple enough. Or you can just scrap the open vetoing [mis]feature). Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html -- 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
