On Mon, Jun 12, 2023 at 10:54:31AM +0200, Jan Kara wrote: > On Sun 11-06-23 15:24:29, Amir Goldstein wrote: > > fsnotify_open() hook is called only from high level system calls > > context and not called for the very many helpers to open files. > > > > This may makes sense for many of the special file open cases, but it is > > inconsistent with fsnotify_close() hook that is called for every last > > fput() of on a file object with FMODE_OPENED. > > > > As a result, it is possible to observe ACCESS, MODIFY and CLOSE events > > without ever observing an OPEN event. > > > > Fix this inconsistency by replacing all the fsnotify_open() hooks with > > a single hook inside do_dentry_open(). > > > > If there are special cases that would like to opt-out of the possible > > overhead of fsnotify() call in fsnotify_open(), they would probably also > > want to avoid the overhead of fsnotify() call in the rest of the fsnotify > > hooks, so they should be opening that file with the __FMODE_NONOTIFY flag. > > > > However, in the majority of those cases, the s_fsnotify_connectors > > optimization in fsnotify_parent() would be sufficient to avoid the > > overhead of fsnotify() call anyway. > > > > Signed-off-by: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@xxxxxxxxx> > > Thanks! The cleanup looks nice so I've applied it with the typo fixup from > Christian. I have a slight worry this might break something subtle > somewhere but after searching for a while I didn't find anything and the > machine boots and ltp tests pass so it's worth a try :) Yep, I agree. If we can reduce cluttering multiple places with fsnotify_open() and instead move it to a central location it's a maintenance win in the long term.
