> On Mon, 2008-08-18 at 10:29 -0700,
david@lang.hm wrote:
>> On Mon, 18 Aug 2008, Eric Paris wrote:
>>
>>> ******************************
>>>
>>> Great, how to build this interface. THIS IS WHAT I ACTUALLY CARE ABOUT
>>>
>>> The communication with userspace has a very specific need. The scanning
>>> process needs to get 'something' that will give it access to the
>>> original file/inode/data being worked on. My previous patch set does
>>> this with a special securityfs file. Scanners would block on 'read.'
>>> This block was waiting for something to be scanned and when available a
>>> dentry_open() was called in the context of the scanner for the inode in
>>> question. This means that the fd in the scanner had to be the same data
>>> as the fd in the original process.
>>
>> having scanners access a file blocking on read won't work for multiple
>> scanners (unless you are going to create multiple files for them to read)
>
> WHAT?
