Subject: Re: metahook(9)
To: Elad Efrat <email@example.com>
From: Brett Lymn <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 06/16/2006 00:53:31
On Wed, Jun 14, 2006 at 06:10:22PM +0200, Elad Efrat wrote:
> > - "inode" is a filesystem dependent term.
> Is there an alternative? if not, this is what it'll use and file-systems
> that can't offer an inode entity are simply not supported.
afaik all file systems have something that uniquely identifies the
file, if you look at the various VOP_GETATTR() handlers they all have
some method of setting the fileid.
> > - using dev_t here seems weird to me. isn't it better to use
> > a pointer to struct mount?
> Aren't they really the same? what is the benefit?
No, they are not the same. The struct mount does not contain the
device that the vfs is mounted on (which I find odd). That's not to
say it could be used to identify the vfs it's just that when I first
did the veriexec code the tuple of dev_t, ino_t were in the attributes
structure together so it seemed logical to use them. I could have
used the struct mount in the vnode but I didn't realise that at the