On Tue, Jul 23, 2024 at 12:29 PM Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue 23-07-24 12:36:27, Ajay Kaher wrote: > > > [ Upstream commit 9709bd548f11a092d124698118013f66e1740f9b ] > > > > > > Wire up the FAN_FS_ERROR event in the fanotify_mark syscall, allowing > > > user space to request the monitoring of FAN_FS_ERROR events. > > > > > > These events are limited to filesystem marks, so check it is the > > > case in the syscall handler. > > > > Greg, > > > > Without 9709bd548f11 in v5.10.y skips LTP fanotify22 test case, as: > > fanotify22.c:312: TCONF: FAN_FS_ERROR not supported in kernel > > > > With 9709bd548f11 in v5.10.220, LTP fanotify22 is failing because of > > timeout as no notification. To fix need to merge following two upstream > > commit to v5.10: > > > > 124e7c61deb27d758df5ec0521c36cf08d417f7a: > > 0001-ext4_fix_error_code_saved_on_super_block_during_file_system.patch > > https://lore.kernel.org/stable/1721717240-8786-1-git-send-email-ajay.kaher@xxxxxxxxxxxx/T/#mf76930487697d8c1383ed5d21678fe504e8e2305 > > > > 9a089b21f79b47eed240d4da7ea0d049de7c9b4d: > > 0001-ext4_Send_notifications_on_error.patch > > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/stable/1721717240-8786-1-git-send-email-ajay.kaher@xxxxxxxxxxxx/T/#md1be98e0ecafe4f92d7b61c048e15bcf286cbd53 > > I know Chuck has been backporting the huge pile of fsnotify changes for > stable and he was running LTP so I'm a bit curious if he saw the fanotify22 > failure as well. The reason for the test failure seems to be that the > combination of features now present in stable has never been upstream which > confuses the test. As such I'm not sure if backporting more features to > stable is warranted just to fix a broken LTP test... But given the huge > pile Chuck has backported already I'm not strongly opposed to backporting a > few more, there's just a question where does this stop :) I'm not sure is it exactly "more features". The fanotify patches and ext4 patches that use them where merges as a feature together. IOW, FAN_FS_ERROR was merged with support for a single fs (ext4) it would be weird to backport the feature with support for zero fs. Also, 5.15.y already has the ext4 patches - not sure why 5.10.y didn't get them. Thanks, Amir.
