Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] New fanotify event info API

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Thu 27-09-18 22:32:23, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 4:39 PM Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri 21-09-18 21:20:29, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> > > Jan,
> > >
> > > Reposting my slightly modified cleanup patch along with the patch
> > > from nixiaoming that uses it to add a new fanotify_init() flag.
> > >
> > > After a few review cycles with nixiaoming, per his request, I took
> > > his FAN_EVENT_INFO_TID patch to my tree, fixes a couple of issues
> > > including commit message wording and tested it.
> > >
> > > For me, the new API seems very intuitive, not sure why thread id was
> > > not reported to begin with, but if you like more concrete use cases,
> > > you will need to ask them from nixiaoming.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Amir.
> > >
> > > Amir Goldstein (1):
> > >   fanotify: store fanotify_init() flags in group's fanotify_data
> > >
> > > nixiaoming (1):
> > >   fanotify: support reporting thread id instead of process id
> >
> > Thanks. Both patches look good to me and I've queued them up to my tree.
> >
> 
> Thanks!
> However... I have found some issue that may require v3:
> 
> - I do not like the idea of changing uapi bit group constants
>   (FAN_ALL_INIT_FLAGS) and adding new bit group constants
>   (FAN_EVENT_INFO_FLAGS) which I don't think should be in uapi.

I agree on the "should not be in uapi" part. For FAN_ALL_INIT_FLAGS
changing the constant is IMO no real issue as I just cannot imagine how
anybody could use that. For FAN_EVENT_INFO_FLAGS the concern is real, I
agree.

> - uapi flag FAN_MARK_FILESYSTEM collides with kernel internal flag
>   FAN_MARK_ONDIR

Good point, that needs to be fixed. Probably we miss some bit in the
BUILD_BUG_ON tests... Looking at FAN_MARK_ONDIR I just don't see why that
is needed at all but let's leave that for a future cleanup.

> Sigh!
> I will send a suggestion patch of how I think those issues should be sorted
> out as a basis for making the API change for_next safer.

OK, I'll have a look at your patch and decide how to go about it.

								Honza
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxxx>
SUSE Labs, CR



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Ext4 Filesystem]     [Union Filesystem]     [Filesystem Testing]     [Ceph Users]     [Ecryptfs]     [AutoFS]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux Cachefs]     [Reiser Filesystem]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]     [CEPH Development]

  Powered by Linux