Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2019 22:29:10 +0200 From: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> To: Fabian Freyer <fabian.freyer@physik.tu-berlin.de> Cc: Christian Barthel <bch@online.de>, freebsd-jail@freebsd.org, stefan@gronke.net Subject: Re: kqueue(2) kevents for jails Message-ID: <20190104202910.GV2326@kib.kiev.ua> In-Reply-To: <ae977530-0297-d404-f34d-90762bc7da7a@physik.tu-berlin.de> References: <106dc2ec-9b92-6885-ca4c-8422e0aa061c@physik.tu-berlin.de> <87k1jkmja7.fsf@x230.onfire.org> <ae977530-0297-d404-f34d-90762bc7da7a@physik.tu-berlin.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Jan 04, 2019 at 09:11:58PM +0100, Fabian Freyer wrote: > On 1/4/19 5:14 PM, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > > No, kevent(2) is not suitable mechanism to notify about jail state changes. > > If anything in the existing system can be reused for such notifications, > > it is devctl(4) notifications which are handled by devd(8). Look at the > > man pages and for existing notifications in kernel code, e.g. > > sys/kern/kern_conf.c notify*() for how devfs does it. > > Can any running binary subscribe to devd(8) events or does that require > a configuration change in /etc/devd.conf? Only one reader is supported, effectively. devctl(4) tries to limit opens naively. But then even if you have the file descriptor and fork or pass it over unix domain socket, single event can be only read by one reader.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20190104202910.GV2326>