On Mon, 2005-02-28 at 10:59 +0900, Kaigai Kohei wrote: > Hello, > > Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > > Yep, the netlink people should be able to help - they known what would be > > required for not sending messages in case there is no listener registered. > > > > Maybe its already possible? I have never used netlink myself. > > If we notify the fork/exec/exit-events to user-space directly as you said, > I don't think some hackings on netlink is necessary. > For example, such packets is sent only when /proc/sys/.../process_grouping is > set, > and user-side daemon set this value, and unset when daemon will exit. > It's not necessary to take too seriously.
Kernel accounting already was discussed in lkml week ago - I'm quite sure Guillaume Thouvenin created exactly that. His module creates do_fork() hook and broadcasts various process' states over netlink. Discussion at http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/2/17/87 -- Evgeniy Polyakov Crash is better than data corruption -- Arthur Grabowski
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
