On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 12:32 AM Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue 19-03-24 18:10:15, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 19, 2024 at 5:57 PM Chuck Lever III <chuck.lever@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > On Mar 19, 2024, at 11:32 AM, Sasha Levin <sashal@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Mar 19, 2024 at 04:26:34AM +0200, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> > > >> Sasha,
> > > >> Something is off.
> > > >> This is a new feature.
> > > >> Not sure how it got selected for stable and dragged a *lot* of
> > > >> infrastructure code changes with it.
> > > >> Can you explain why triggered this backports or is it just "AI"?
> > > >
> > > > Hey Amir,
> > > >
> > > > The patches you've pointed out are part of a series backported by Chuck
> > > > for the benefit of nfsd.
> > > >
> > > > In general, we don't object to new functionality as long as:
> > > >
> > > > 1. It helps reduce divergence of later fixes from upstream.
> > > > 2. It's well tested.
> > >
> > > Amir, this is why I asked you about how you test fanotify.
> > >
> > > The goal of my backport was to address issues with the NFSD
> > > filecache, and unfortunately, a lot of it depends on fixes
> > > and features in fs/notify.
> >
> > OK, I wonder which features filecache depends on?
> > I can't believe that it depends on any of the final
> > "wire up fanotify XXX" commits.
> >
> > Anyway, I do not have an objection to backporting those features,
> > just wanted to know if there was a reason.
> > In house, we are using the 5.15 LTS kernel with some of those
> > features backported.
> >
> > Jan, WDYT?
>
> So if somebody (Chuck in this case) actually consciously backported stuff
> and tested everything works then I have no objection...
>
OK. fun!
Chuck,
If we are going to backport those features to 5.15.y, let's do it properly.
Please follow up with update of man pages and LTS tests where relevant.
I will reply with notes to specific patches.
For this one, need to update fanotify_mark(2) once commits with the specific
5.15.y version after commits are merged, i.e.:
FAN_FS_ERROR (since Linux 5.16 and 5.15.???)
LTP test fanotify22 tests FAN_FS_ERROR.
This test indicates that there is a bug fix that needs to be backported:
.tags = (const struct tst_tag[]) {
{"linux-git", "124e7c61deb2"},
I guess this was not backported? so I wonder how come you have not
observed the issue with fanotify22.
Maybe the test does not cover it??
Thanks,
Amir.
