On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 02:11:30PM +0300, Amir Goldstein wrote: > > Amir, I was just thinking about this a little over the weekend and I > > don't think we discussed how to handle the FAN_REPORT_PIDFD | > > FAN_REPORT_FID and friends case? My immediate thought is to make > > FAN_REPORT_PIDFD mutually exclusive with FAN_REPORT_FID and friends, > > but then again receiving a pidfd along with FID events may be also > > useful for some? What are your thoughts on this? If we don't go ahead > > with mutual exclusion, then this multiple event types alongside struct > > fanotify_event_metadata starts getting a little clunky, don't you > > think? > > > > The current format of an fanotify event already supports multiple info records: > > [fanotify_event_metadata] > [[fanotify_event_info_header][event record #1]] > [[fanotify_event_info_header][event record #2]]... > > (meta)->event_len is the total event length including all info records. > > For example, FAN_REPORT_FID | FAN_REPORT_DFID_MAME produces > (for some events) two info records, one FAN_EVENT_INFO_TYPE_FID > record and one FAN_EVENT_INFO_TYPE_DFID_NAME record. Ah, that's right! I now remember reviewing some patches associated with the FID change series which mentioned the possibility of receiving multiple FID info records. As the implementation currently stands, AFAIK there's not possibility for fanotify to ever return more than two info records, right? > So I see no problem with combination of FAN_REPORT_FID > and FAN_REPORT_PIDFD. OK. Is there any preference in terms of whether the new FAN_REPORT_PIDFD info records precede or come after FAN_REPORT_FID/FAN_REPORT_DFID_NAME info records in FAN_REPORT_FID or FAN_REPORT_FID | FAN_REPORT_DFID_NAME configurations? /M
