Subject: Re: metahook(9)
To: YAMAMOTO Takashi <email@example.com>
From: Elad Efrat <elad@NetBSD.org>
Date: 06/15/2006 11:51:14
YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote:
> IMO, it should
> - handle normal filesystem activities including file removal.
I'd go with this one.
> my main concern is, unless metahook handle filesystem activities as its own,
> your new users of it might end up to put their own adhoc hooks into
> vfs code as veriexec does.
Absolutely correct. However, I'm wondering if triggering an event (or
several) when a file is removed shouldn't be implemented as part of a
"fileop" kauth(9) scope?
(and have a "metahook listener", for example)
> yes. and function names etc.
Okay, so metahook_inode_foo() becomes metahook_file_foo() and "ino_t
inode" becomes "ino_t file"?