On Thu 14-04-22 14:02:27, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> > > Jan,
> > >
> > > Just a heads up - you were right about this inconsistency and I have both
> > > patches to fix it [1] and LTP test to reproduce the issue [2] and started work
> > > on the new FAN_MARK_IGNORE API.
> > > The new API has no tests yet, but it has a man page draft [3].
> > >
> > > The description of the bugs as I wrote them in the fix commit message:
> > >
> > > This results in several subtle changes of behavior, hopefully all
> > > desired changes of behavior, for example:
> > >
> > > - Group A has a mount mark with FS_MODIFY in mask
> > > - Group A has a mark with ignored mask that does not survive FS_MODIFY
> > > and does not watch children on directory D.
> > > - Group B has a mark with FS_MODIFY in mask that does watch children
> > > on directory D.
> > > - FS_MODIFY event on file D/foo should not clear the ignored mask of
> > > group A, but before this change it does
> > >
> > > And if group A ignored mask was set to survive FS_MODIFY:
> > > - FS_MODIFY event on file D/foo should be reported to group A on account
> > > of the mount mark, but before this change it is wrongly ignored
> > >
> > > Fixes: 2f02fd3fa13e ("fanotify: fix ignore mask logic for events
> > > on child and on dir")
> >
> > Thanks for looking into this! Yeah, the change in behavior looks OK to me.
> >
>
> And I got sufficiently annoyed by our mixed terminology of "ignored mask"
> and "ignore mask". Man pages only use the latter and also most of the
> comments in code and many of the commit messages but not all of them
> and variable name is of course the former, so I decided to take action:
>
> commit 6c6f07348c0c587e2bdcdb997caa30f852e818ef
> Author: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@xxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Tue Apr 12 13:25:34 2022 +0300
>
> fanotify: prepare for setting event flags in ignore mask
>
> [...]
>
> To emphasize the change in terminology, also rename ignored_mask mark
> member to ignore_mask and use accessor to get only ignored events or
> events and flags.
>
> This change in terminology finally aligns with the "ignore mark"
> language in man pages and in most of the comments.
>
> I hope I didn't take it too far...
Forgot to respond to this one but it makes sense to me.
Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxxx>
SUSE Labs, CR
