Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH -v3 5/8] fsnotify: unified filesystem notification backend | From | Eric Paris <> | Date | Fri, 28 Nov 2008 18:32:59 -0500 |
| |
On Fri, 2008-11-28 at 04:54 +0000, Al Viro wrote: > On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 12:21:18PM -0500, Eric Paris wrote: > > What the hell is ->notification_list and what in this patchset would > add stuff to it? Even more interesting question: how long would these > guys remain there and what's to prevent a race with umount? At least > 'inode-only' events will pin down the inode and leaving the matching > iput() until after umount() is a Bad Thing(tm)...
It's not in this set, my failure. But I'm glad you noticed it since you can help me get it right before I send the fanotify stuff....
If you look at the "fsnotify()" function in
http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=122650641702090&w=2
you will see users. I've since moved fanotify_add_event_to_notif() to be a per group function. dnotify doesn't make use of the notification_list. fanotify will. I can remove that for this patch set (but removing everything that isn't in preperation for fanotify leaves us with little new and useful)
Anyway at the fsnotify_BLAH my intention is to only put events which include a struct path (for which I've take a path_get()). When the event is later pulled off of the queue I call dentry_open. I assume that a normal opened fd, if it returns is always safe vs umount. Since I've taken a ref to the path I assume it's safe to use in an open call.
In my previous patch set these entries with struct path can survive forever if userspace fanotify listeners suck. I saw it as a future improvement to drop notification events on a timer if needed...
-Eric
| |