On Tue, Jul 23, 2024 at 10:06 AM Ajay Kaher <ajay.kaher@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > [ Upstream commit 9709bd548f11a092d124698118013f66e1740f9b ] > > > > Wire up the FAN_FS_ERROR event in the fanotify_mark syscall, allowing > > user space to request the monitoring of FAN_FS_ERROR events. > > > > These events are limited to filesystem marks, so check it is the > > case in the syscall handler. > > Greg, > > Without 9709bd548f11 in v5.10.y skips LTP fanotify22 test case, as: > fanotify22.c:312: TCONF: FAN_FS_ERROR not supported in kernel > > With 9709bd548f11 in v5.10.220, LTP fanotify22 is failing because of > timeout as no notification. To fix need to merge following two upstream > commit to v5.10: > > 124e7c61deb27d758df5ec0521c36cf08d417f7a: > 0001-ext4_fix_error_code_saved_on_super_block_during_file_system.patch > https://lore.kernel.org/stable/1721717240-8786-1-git-send-email-ajay.kaher@xxxxxxxxxxxx/T/#mf76930487697d8c1383ed5d21678fe504e8e2305 > > 9a089b21f79b47eed240d4da7ea0d049de7c9b4d: > 0001-ext4_Send_notifications_on_error.patch > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/stable/1721717240-8786-1-git-send-email-ajay.kaher@xxxxxxxxxxxx/T/#md1be98e0ecafe4f92d7b61c048e15bcf286cbd53 > > -Ajay I agree that this is the best approach, because the test has no other way to test if ext4 specifically supports FAN_FS_ERROR. Chuck, I wonder how those patches end up in 5.15.y but not in 5.10.y? Also, since you backported *most* of this series: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20211025192746.66445-1-krisman@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/ I think it would be wise to also backport the sample code and documentation patches to 5.15.y and 5.10.y. 9abeae5d4458 docs: Fix formatting of literal sections in fanotify docs 8fc70b3a142f samples: Make fs-monitor depend on libc and headers c0baf9ac0b05 docs: Document the FAN_FS_ERROR event 5451093081db samples: Add fs error monitoring example. Gabriel, if 9abeae5d4458 has a Fixes: tag it may have been auto seleced for 5.15.y after c0baf9ac0b05 was picked up... Thanks, Amir.
