On Mon, Nov 11, 2024 at 09:11:01PM +0100, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> We got a report that adding a fanotify filsystem watch prevents tail -f
> from receiving events.
>
> Reproducer:
>
> 1. Create 3 windows / login sessions. Become root in each session.
> 2. Choose a mounted filesystem that is pretty quiet; I picked /boot.
> 3. In the first window, run: fsnotifywait -S -m /boot
> 4. In the second window, run: echo data >> /boot/foo
> 5. In the third window, run: tail -f /boot/foo
> 6. Go back to the second window and run: echo more data >> /boot/foo
> 7. Observe that the tail command doesn't show the new data.
> 8. In the first window, hit control-C to interrupt fsnotifywait.
> 9. In the second window, run: echo still more data >> /boot/foo
> 10. Observe that the tail command in the third window has now printed
> the missing data.
>
> When stracing tail, we observed that when fanotify filesystem mark is
> set, tail does get the inotify event, but the event is receieved with
> the filename:
>
> read(4, "\1\0\0\0\2\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\20\0\0\0foo\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0",
> 50) = 32
>
> This is unexpected, because tail is watching the file itself and not its
> parent and is inconsistent with the inotify event received by tail when
> fanotify filesystem mark is not set:
>
> read(4, "\1\0\0\0\2\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0", 50) = 16
>
> The inteference between different fsnotify groups was caused by the fact
> that the mark on the sb requires the filename, so the filename is passed
> to fsnotify(). Later on, fsnotify_handle_event() tries to take care of
> not passing the filename to groups (such as inotify) that are interested
> in the filename only when the parent is watching.
>
> But the logic was incorrect for the case that no group is watching the
> parent, some groups are watching the sb and some watching the inode.
>
> Reported-by: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Fixes: 7372e79c9eb9 ("fanotify: fix logic of reporting name info with watched parent")
> Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx # 5.10+
> Signed-off-by: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@xxxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Josef Bacik <josef@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Thanks,
Josef
