On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 3:05 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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)? _______________________________________________ zones-discuss mailing list zones-discuss@opensolaris.org
