> On Jul 23, 2024, at 10:34 AM, Gabriel Krisman Bertazi <gabriel@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Amir Goldstein <amir73il@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> On Tue, Jul 23, 2024 at 10:06 AM Ajay Kaher <ajay.kaher@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> 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? > > I wonder why this was backported to stable in the first place. I wanted to fix the myriad problems with the NFSD file cache in v5.10.y and v5.15.y. These problems were addressed by a long list of changes from v5.19 to v6.3. I was told that it was preferred that I do a full backport of all NFSD commits from v6.3 to the older kernels. The fanotify patches were dependencies. > I get > there is a lot of refactoring in this series, which might be useful when > backporting further fixes. but 9709bd548f11 just enabled a new feature - > which seems against stable rules. Considering that "anything is a CVE", > we really need to be cautious about this kind of stuff in stable > kernels. These patches were posted for review before they were included. Amir noted there were some changes to fanotify that would require man page updates and some modifications to ltp, but there were no other comments. > Is it possible to drop 9709bd548f11 from stable instead? I've attempted a revert. It's not clean, but seems to be fixable by hand. I can run some tests to see if that breaks NFSD. >> Gabriel, if 9abeae5d4458 has a Fixes: tag it may have been auto seleced >> for 5.15.y after c0baf9ac0b05 was picked up... > > right. It would be really cool if we had a way to append this > information after the fact. How would people feel about using > git-notes in the kernel tree to support that? > > -- > Gabriel Krisman Bertazi -- Chuck Lever
