On Thu, Dec 7, 2023 at 11:51 PM Josef Bacik <josef@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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 suppose that you mean a test that exercises the lockdep assertion? This is much easier to do, so I don't see the point in actually testing the deadlock. The only thing is that the assertion will not be backported so this test would protect us from future regression, but will not nudge stable kernel users to backport the deadlock fix, which I don't think they should be doing anyway. It is actually already exercised by tests overlay/068,069, but I can add a generic test to get wider testing coverage. Thanks, Amir.
