On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 8:01 PM Amir Goldstein <amir73il@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > LTP tests for this feature are on my 'fanotify-exec' branch here: > > > https://github.com/matthewbobrowski/ltp/commits/fanotify_exec. The files > > > that contains the test cases are provided below: > > > > > > syscalls/fanotify03: test cases have been updated to cover > > > FAN_OPEN_EXEC_PERM events > > > syscalls/fanotify12: newly introduced LTP test file to cover > > > FAN_OPEN_EXEC events > > > > I have been wondering for a while why the testcases passed when ignore mask > > hasn't been properly treated in fanotify_group_event_mask() but then I > > realized that the generic code will not even call to fanotify if ignore > > masks result in clearing the event. > > So does that means we have missing test coverage? > This is covered by test case #3 of Matthew's proposed LTP test. https://github.com/matthewbobrowski/ltp/commit/9e350fe15a5423d896ed0e8e147edc15bee13b42#diff-2bb8ddff24b3a031be0f64354262e587R76 > I think the idea of this patch was that > FAN_MARK_INODE, FAN_OPEN | FAN_OPEN_EXEC > + > FAN_MARK_MOUNT, FAN_MARK_IGNORED_MASK | FAN_OPEN_EXEC > Not even mount mark. ignore mask on the same inode mark as well. Thanks, Amir.
