From: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com>
To: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Cc: Matthew Bobrowski <mbobrowski@mbobrowski.org>,
Steve Grubb <sgrubb@redhat.com>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] fanotify: introduce new event flag FAN_EXEC
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2018 19:18:27 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAOQ4uxgM7tvtFo6gs62VtUFiJg3DXeTTKuv2f+YvXCmBE4x-Dg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20181003154005.GD24030@quack2.suse.cz>
On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 6:40 PM Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> wrote:
>
> On Tue 02-10-18 13:37:13, Amir Goldstein wrote:
[...]
> > I am in fact in leaning to the former (as Mathew implemented it), because
> > I am looking at inotify and my effort to add the "dentry" events to fanotify.
> > First, my proposal suggests to report the optional event flag FAN_ONDIR,
> > just like inotify does.
>
> Well, we already do deliver FAN_ONDIR event flag if the event was on
> directory AFAIK. Just with fanotify you also have to explicitely ask for
> events on directories to be delivered by setting FAN_ONDIR in the mark's
> mask.
>
We actually mask it in out fanotify, so in inotify, it is out-only and
in fanotify, it is
in-only. BTW, I could not help cleaning up that horrible FAN_MARK_ONDIR
and it won us a very nice optimization of directory access events.
patches to follow soon.
>
> > How badly can a program be written that it opts into EXEC/ONDIR events
> > in fanotify_init() and doesn't request them in fanotify_mark() and it flips
> > when those "optional" flags are reported?
> > Assuming we also properly document that behavior.
>
> Yeah, so I'm not so concerned about an applicating getting surprised by
> additional event being set when it in fact explicitely asked for it. I'm
> more concerned about the "ease to understand the interface and use it
> correctly". I.e., the logic of interface design. And in this area, just
> defining new FAN_OPEN_EXEC event like any other seems to win? No need for
> special fanotify_init() flags and explanations in the manpage.
>
Ah! yes, that would be better.
> > BTW, as far as I understand the current man page, I did not find any explicit
> > statement that says that you CANNOT get an event if you did not ask for it.
> > FWIW, inotify and fanotify man pages are quite similar, so it may infer that
> > fanotify inherits the same expectations as one had from inotify.
> >
> > Having said all that, I'd like to clarify that I do not object to "new
> > event type",
> > I understand why you find it "cleaner".
> > I just find it less "efficient", because it adds extra calls to
> > fsnotify() for what
> > IMO is not a good enough reason.
>
> I'm not sure I understand your concern here. Are you concerned that
> fsnotify_open() would need to do one call for FS_OPEN event and one call
> for FS_OPEN_EXEC so that we won't "leak" FS_OPEN_EXEC event if user didn't
> ask for it?
Yes.
> If that's your concern, what if we just masked out all
> "unwanted" events in fanotify_handle_event()? fanotify_should_send_event()
> does all the masking anyway so it's not like we'd loose any performance
> with that and with current set of fanotify events it would be completely
> transparent.
>
I though about this first, but got myself confused thinking it would be messy.
Now I am looking again and don't understand why.
I will try to sum up the solution for us and for Mathew:
- No FAN_ENABLE_EXEC (sorry for that detour)
- Implementation in fsnotify_open() is exactly as Mathew did it, but
changing the
name of the flag to FS_OPEN_EXEC
- Add FAN_OPEN_EXEC to valid user events mask and valid outgoing events
- fanotify_should_send_event() returns the mask to be reported in the event
-- s/return false/return 0/
-- return event_mask & FAN_ALL_OUTGOING_EVENTS & marks_mask &
~marks_ignored_mask;
So we won't report events that user did not set a mask for and we won't report
events that user has set an ignore mask for.
Thanks,
Amir.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-10-03 23:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-09-27 13:05 [PATCH v2 1/1] fanotify: introduce new event flag FAN_EXEC Matthew Bobrowski
2018-09-27 13:57 ` Amir Goldstein
2018-09-28 1:27 ` Matthew Bobrowski
2018-09-28 5:39 ` Amir Goldstein
2018-10-01 8:21 ` Matthew Bobrowski
2018-10-01 9:13 ` Amir Goldstein
2018-10-01 10:58 ` Jan Kara
2018-10-01 14:01 ` Amir Goldstein
2018-10-02 9:24 ` Jan Kara
2018-10-02 10:37 ` Amir Goldstein
2018-10-03 15:40 ` Jan Kara
2018-10-03 16:18 ` Amir Goldstein [this message]
2018-10-03 16:33 ` Jan Kara
2018-10-03 20:45 ` Matthew Bobrowski
2018-10-07 11:13 ` Matthew Bobrowski
2018-10-07 13:40 ` Amir Goldstein
2018-10-08 9:35 ` Jan Kara
2018-10-02 11:50 ` Matthew Bobrowski
2018-10-03 15:45 ` Jan Kara
2018-10-01 11:06 ` Jan Kara
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=CAOQ4uxgM7tvtFo6gs62VtUFiJg3DXeTTKuv2f+YvXCmBE4x-Dg@mail.gmail.com \
--to=amir73il@gmail.com \
--cc=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mbobrowski@mbobrowski.org \
--cc=sgrubb@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).