Hi Jan, It's been over a year since I posted my last patch revision [1]. IIRC, one of your comments during LSF was to attach marks to a super block instead of the root inode. The patch series on my fanotify_sb branch [2] implements super block marks after a lot of cleanup and re-factoring patches. The patches pass all the fsnotify LTP tests and some very basic sb mark tests, but before I post the series, I would like to write some more tests. While this patch series stands for itself and adds a feature, that Marko requested, for me this is only a convenient checkpoint before adding fanotify support for more events, because the super block is always available from fsnotify hooks, whereas the mount is not. The main issue I have right now is with the ignore masks logic. The logic in send_to_group() doesn't match the logic in fanotify_should_send_event(), which in turn, does not match the man page documentation. I was thinking: - ignore mask on inode negates inode and mount and sb mark mask - ignore mask on mount negates mount and sb mark masks, but not inode mark mask - ignore mask on sb negates only sb mark mask The reasoning is that is makes sense to include a super set and exclude a subset. The problem is that inode is not really a subset of a mount, but mount and inode are really a subset of a super block. Current fanotify code seems to allow including an inode, but excluding a mount, which will result (I think) in getting events on the inode unless it was accessed from a specific mount. The examples of ignore mask in the fanotify(7) man page do not imply that this use case was intended and I really doubt if anybody is using ignore mask this way. I wonder if we should change the behavior of fanotify to only allow excluding an inode from a mount mark and not vice versa, as suggested by man page and by the logic in fsnotify() and send_to_group() and wait to see if anybody shouts. Thoughts? Amir. [1] https://lwn.net/Articles/716973/ [2] https://github.com/amir73il/linux/commits/fanotify_sb
