Re: A possible flaw in the fsnotify design.

[Eric Paris]

On Tue, 2010-11-16 at 01:44 +0300, Alexey Zaytsev wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 01:11, Eric Paris <eparis@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2010-11-16 at 01:05 +0300, Alexey Zaytsev wrote:
> >> Just some thoughts.
> >>
> >> Consider the situation: Files A and B both point to the same inode.
> >> File A is being watched, but the user won't get notifications if B is
> >> modified.
> >
> > That's not true.  Users watch inodes, not files (this is true for both
> > inotify and fanotify).  Give it a try, it works.
> >
> 
> debian-i386:~/tmp# touch a
> debian-i386:~/tmp# ../fanotify a &
> debian-i386:~/tmp# link a b
> debian-i386:~/tmp# ls -li
> total 0
> 3433 -rw-r--r-- 2 root root 0 Nov 15 22:37 a
> 3433 -rw-r--r-- 2 root root 0 Nov 15 22:37 b
> debian-i386:~/tmp# echo 123 > b
> /root/tmp/b: pid=2143 mask = 20 open
> /root/tmp/b: pid=2143 mask = a modify 0 - 4 close(writable)  0 - 4
> 
> Am I doing something wrong? Same thing happens if I watch the mount point.

Maybe I don't understand the problem, you watched the inode behind A.
You made changes accessing this inode via B, you got notification about
those changes.  Isn't that what you wanted?

--
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/