On Monday, 21 September 2009 22:28:23 Jamie Lokier wrote: > It would be logical if fanotify could block and ack those [mount & umount > events] in the same way as it can block and ack other accesses (with the > usual filtering rules on which inodes trigger events, and which don't or are > cached). Hmm. To me, fanotify is about file contents first of all: this is what fanotify wants to be able to veto. Directory events seem reasonable to add for inotify compatibility, but I see no need for access decisions on them. Even less so for mounts and unmounts. (Besides, we can't hold any vfs locks while asking fanotify so those operations wouldn't be atomic, anyway.) Thanks, Andreas -- 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
