On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 4:35 PM, Henry Wilson <henry.wilson@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 30/05/18 14:01, Jan Kara wrote:
>>
>> Thanks. The patch looks good. I've added it to my tree. BTW, do you plan
>> on
>> working on a similar addition to fanotify?
>>
>> Honza
>>
>
> Ah that's grand, I'm glad to have helped to improve things.
> I'm not familiar with fanotify, however a quick look at fanotify_user.c
> suggests that a similar approach may be taken by modifying:
>
> if(!fsn_mark) {
> ...
> }
> else if (create) {
> return -EEXIST;
> }
>
> in both fanotify_add_vfsmount_mark() and fanotify_add_inode_mark()
>
I think that was a yes/no question and I interpret your answer as no??
Anyway, another yes/no question:
Can you write a simple LTP test to verify the new API?
I reccon Jan was also expecting an actual patch posted to man pages
maintainer (and linux-api, which was not cc'ed on the latest patch).
About the fanotify change, since fanotify API does have 'flags' separate
from 'mask', I am not sure if FAN_MARK_EXCL_ADD would be the
best flag name?? Perhaps FAN_MARK_CREATE? FAN_MARK_NEW?
not sure.
But also, I did not get a chance to comment about the chosen inotify
flag name that the lexical proximity to IN_EXCL_UNLINK is a bit odd
considering that _EXCL_ mean two completely different things.
Should we maybe re-consider the chosen flag name?
Maybe include linux-api in the discussion?
Thanks,
Amir.
