Thanks for the review Amir, appreciated as always. On Thu, Jun 10, 2021 at 08:37:19AM +0300, Amir Goldstein wrote: > On Thu, Jun 10, 2021 at 3:19 AM Matthew Bobrowski <repnop@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Hey Jan/Amir/Christian, > > > > Sending through v2 of the fanotify pidfd patch series. This series > > contains the necessary fixes/suggestions that had come out of the > > previous discussions, which can be found here [0], here [1], and here > > [3]. > > > > The main difference in this series is that we perform pidfd creation a > > little earlier on i.e. in copy_event_to_user() so that clean up of the > > pidfd can be performed nicely in the event of an info > > generation/copying error. Additionally, we introduce two errors. One > > being FAN_NOPIDFD, which is supplied to the listener in the event that > > a pidfd cannot be created due to early process termination. The other > > being FAN_EPIDFD, which will be supplied in the event that an error > > was encountered during pidfd creation. > > > > kernel/pid.c: remove static qualifier from pidfd_create() > > kernel/pid.c: implement additional checks upon pidfd_create() > > parameters > > fanotify/fanotify_user.c: minor cosmetic adjustments to fid labels > > fanotify/fanotify_user.c: introduce a generic info record copying > > helper > > Above fanotify commits look good to me. > Please remove /fanotify_user.c from commit titles and use 'pidfd:' for > the pidfd commit titles. OK, noted for the next series. Thanks for the pointers. > > fanotify: add pidfd support to the fanotify API > > > > This one looks mostly fine. Gave some minor comments. > > The biggest thing I am missing is a link to an LTP test draft and > man page update draft. Fair point, the way I approached it was that I'd get the ACK from all of you on the overall implementation and then go ahead with providing additional things like LTP and man-pages drafts, before the merge is performed. > In general, I think it is good practice to provide a test along with any > fix, but for UAPI changes we need to hold higher standards - both the > test and man page draft should be a must before merge IMO. Agree, moving forward I will take this approach. > We already know there is going to be a clause about FAN_NOPIDFD > and so on... I think it is especially hard for people on linux-api list to > review a UAPI change without seeing the contract in a user manual > format. Yes, much of the information is in the commit message, but it > is not the same thing as reading a user manual and verifying that the > contract makes sense to a programmer. Makes sense. /M
