On 05/30/2018 08:40 AM, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> 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?
Certainly (regarding linux-api).
--
~Randy
