Subject: Re: metahook(9)
To: Elad Efrat <>
From: Bill Studenmund <>
List: tech-kern
Date: 06/15/2006 10:34:36
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thu, Jun 15, 2006 at 07:31:52PM +0200, Elad Efrat wrote:
> Bill Studenmund wrote:
> > As Martin notes, you should use file handles. They are the "portable"=
> > format of inode numbers. And with network file systems, you really can'=
> > use anything else.
> I don't intend on making metahook(9) work over NFS or networked
> file-systems; the man-page states this.

Then don't do it. As in don't check it in.

My understanding of metahook was that it was to abstract out what was=20
needed for Veriexec, and to make it so that it and other services can=20
operate w/o having each one of them need to shove something different into=
all the VFS-layer routines.

What complications do you see in extending metahook(9) to support=20
networked file systems?

Take care,


Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (NetBSD)