Alexey Dobriyan adobri...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 11:11:54AM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
On Thu, 2009-02-19 at 22:06 +0300, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
Alexey, I agree with you here. I've been fighting myself internally
about these two somewhat opposing approaches. Of *course* we
Quoting Dave Hansen (d...@linux.vnet.ibm.com):
On Tue, 2009-02-24 at 07:47 +0300, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
I think what I posted is a decent compromise. It gets you those
warnings at runtime and is a one-way trip for any given process. But,
it does detect in certain cases (fork() and
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 11:11:54AM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
On Thu, 2009-02-19 at 22:06 +0300, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
Inotify isn't supported yet? You do
if (!list_empty(inode-inotify_watches))
return -E;
without hooking into inotify syscalls.
ptrace(2)
On Thu, 2009-02-19 at 22:06 +0300, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
Inotify isn't supported yet? You do
if (!list_empty(inode-inotify_watches))
return -E;
without hooking into inotify syscalls.
ptrace(2) isn't supported -- look at struct task_struct::ptraced and
friends.
