On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 07:53:18PM +0100, Yoann Vandoorselaere <[email protected]> wrote: > After looking at Linux kernel 2.6.32 kernel code, I can confirm that my > understanding is not flawed. > > I guess you then need to explain why this is a security bug ;)
Actually, it's not called fsnotify - the synchronous mechanism is _fanotify_, which is implemented to get one event per change. (That's why I wasn't sure about the name, I looked it up now, again, you can do that, too, fsnotify is a good starting point). fsnotify is the new mechanism that is used to implement dnotify, inotify (which do not give you one event/change and can lose events) and fanotify (which is synchronous and is used by security-sensitive applications that need one change per event). Here are the patchsets: http://people.redhat.com/~eparis/fsnotify/http://people.redhat.com/~eparis/fsnotify/ Here is some info about it: http://lwn.net/Articles/339253/ > Google Source search is your friend or in this case, simply google search. Note it isn't _my_ job to correct you all the time, it is _yours_. Just check your facts - each time you start with "it is my understanding" you were wrong so far. If I can do it, so can you. -- The choice of a Deliantra, the free code+content MORPG -----==- _GNU_ http://www.deliantra.net ----==-- _ generation ---==---(_)__ __ ____ __ Marc Lehmann --==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / [email protected] -=====/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ _______________________________________________ libev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.schmorp.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libev
