On Thu, Dec 07, 2023 at 02:38:21PM +0200, Amir Goldstein wrote: > Hi Jan & Christian, > > I am not planning to post the fanotify pre-content event patches [1] > for 6.8. Not because they are not ready, but because the usersapce > example is not ready. > > Also, I think it is a good idea to let the large permission hooks > cleanup work to mature over the 6.8 cycle, before we introduce the > pre-content events. > > However, I would like to include the following vfs prep patches along > with the vfs.rw PR for 6.8, which could be titled as the subject of > this cover letter. > > Patch 1 is a variant of a cleanup suggested by Christoph to get rid > of the generic_copy_file_range() exported symbol. > > Patches 2,3 add the file_write_not_started() assertion to fsnotify > file permission hooks. IMO, it is important to merge it along with > vfs.rw because: > > 1. This assert is how I tested vfs.rw does what it aimed to achieve > 2. This will protect us from new callers that break the new order > 3. The commit message of patch 3 provides the context for the entire > series and can be included in the PR message > > Patch 4 is the final change of fsnotify permission hook locations/args > and is the last of the vfs prerequsites for pre-content events. > > If we merge patch 4 for 6.8, it will be much easier for the development > of fanotify pre-content events in 6.9 dev cycle, which be contained > within the fsnotify subsystem. Reviewed-by: Josef Bacik <josef@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Can you get an fstest added that exercises the freeze deadlock? I feel like we're going to break that at some point and I'd rather find out in testing than in production. Thanks, Josef
