Re: [patch] kernel sysfs events layer

[Robert Love]

On Wed, 2004-09-15 at 14:34 -0700, Tim Hockin wrote:

> It's a can of worms, is what it is.  And I'm not sure what a good fix
> would be.  Would it just be enough to send a generic "mount-table changed"
> event, and let userspace figure out the rest?

"Can of worms" is a tough description for something that there is no
practical security issue for, just a lot of hand waving.  No one even
uses name spaces.

Anyhow, I already said that we could send out a generic kobject instead
of the one tied to the specific device.

> Or really, why is the kernel broadcasting a mount, which originated in
> userland.  Couldn't mount (or a mount wrapper) do that?  It's already
> running in the right namespace...

In practice stuff like that never works.  Besides, it is not mount(1)
that we want to wrap but the mount(2) system call.  And, uh, I'd rather
stab myself than try to get that patch by Uli.

	Robert Love


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/