Subject: Re: metahook(9)
To: Bill Studenmund <>
From: Elad Efrat <>
List: tech-kern
Date: 06/15/2006 20:38:22
Bill Studenmund wrote:

> 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 
> needed for Veriexec, and to make it so that it and other services can 
> operate w/o having each one of them need to shove something different into 
> all the VFS-layer routines.

Actually, it was an abstraction to satisfy two very specific features I
planned on working on. These features simply are meaningless with
regards to networked file-systems.

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

It's something that *I* don't have the time to look into doing. If
someone else wants to look into it, fine. If nobody wants to look into
it and ther's a veto on introducing the interface without supporting
networked file-systems, also fine -- but keep in mind that this is
ridiculous in levels even new in NetBSD-land because (a) in the four
years Veriexec exists no other demand was for its meta-data association
code and (b) the features I was working on are meaningless for files
on networked file-systems.

Basically, you are ruling out an interface that can have near immediate
benefit to NetBSD for reasons that don't exist. :)


Elad Efrat