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() (
) and using that if it returns a non-NULL value (which it sounds like
it always should)?
zones-discuss mailing list

Reply via email to