>On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 3:05 AM, <Casper.Dik at sun.com> wrote: >> >> >>>Originally I did that, but there was concern v_path might not always >>>be correct (or available) (such as renames or with hard links IIRC), >>>and so might generate a confusing message in those situations. I >>>wasn't aware of any mechanism that could take exec_file or the vnode >>>and generate a nice canonical pathname that didn't suffer from >>>renaming or hard link issues, so the mountpoint was chosen instead. I >>>think ideally it'd be nice to have both (in case the offending binary >>>is deleted, you can still figure out where it took place). >> >> There are a few renamings we need to fix in the fs code; there's code >> which interprets v_path and beautifies like we use for /proc. >> >> Then you either get proper path or no answer. Typically, though, >> because your inside exec you MUST have translated the pathname. > >Doing a little digging through the /proc code a few minutes ago, does >this mean you're suggesting using vnodetopath() ( >http://src.opensolaris.org/source/xref/onnv/onnv-gate/usr/src/uts/common/fs/lookup.c#vnodetopath >) and using that if it returns a non-NULL value (which it sounds like >it always should)?
I don't think there's a 100% guarantee, but I can't of the top of my head see where it not work. I would, however, make sure that you handle a failure of the function. Casper
