On Tue, Aug 10, 2021 at 01:33:48PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote: > Hello Matthew! > > On Sun 08-08-21 15:23:59, Matthew Bobrowski wrote: > > This is V5 of the FAN_REPORT_PIDFD patch series. It contains the minor > > comment/commit description fixes that were picked up by Amir in the > > last series review [0, 1]. > > > > LTP tests for this API change can be found here [2]. Man page updates > > for this change can be found here [3]. > > > > [0] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/CAOQ4uxhnCk+FXK_e_GA=jC_0HWO+3ZdwHSi=zCa2Kpb0NDxBSg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/CAOQ4uxgO3oViTSFZ0zs6brrHrmw362r1C9SQ7g6=XgRwyrzMuw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > [2] https://github.com/matthewbobrowski/ltp/tree/fanotify_pidfd_v2 > > [3] https://github.com/matthewbobrowski/man-pages/tree/fanotify_pidfd_v1 > > > > Matthew Bobrowski (5): > > kernel/pid.c: remove static qualifier from pidfd_create() > > kernel/pid.c: implement additional checks upon pidfd_create() > > parameters > > fanotify: minor cosmetic adjustments to fid labels > > fanotify: introduce a generic info record copying helper > > fanotify: add pidfd support to the fanotify API > > Thanks! I've pulled the series into my tree. Note that your fanotify21 LTP > testcase is broken with the current kernel because 'ino' entry got added to > fdinfo. I think having to understand all possible keys that can occur in > fdinfo is too fragile. I understand why you want to do that but I guess the > test would be too faulty to be practical. So I'd just ignore unknown keys > in fdinfo for that test. Excellent, for merging these changes! In regards to the LTP test (fanotify21), at the time of writing I had also shared a similar thought in the sense that it was too fragile, but wrongly so I weighed up my decision based on the likelihood and frequency of fields being changed/added to fdinfo. I was very wrong... Anyway, I will fix it so that any "unknown" fields are ignored. /M
