>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)?

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.


zones-discuss mailing list

Reply via email to