Re: [PATCH 1/2] fanotify: store fsid in mark instead of in connector

From: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
To: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>, Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] fanotify: store fsid in mark instead of in connector
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2023 16:50:07 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20231130155007.q3rwbwugeepowh55@quack3> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAOQ4uxhOc0JBQ6JcHfHxOfi57OzHWdK=i-onP8++pX2PuAdw3Q@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu 30-11-23 17:29:02, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 4:25 PM Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> wrote:
> > > @@ -530,6 +528,7 @@ struct fsnotify_mark {
> > >  #define FSNOTIFY_MARK_FLAG_IGNORED_SURV_MODIFY       0x0100
> > >  #define FSNOTIFY_MARK_FLAG_NO_IREF           0x0200
> > >  #define FSNOTIFY_MARK_FLAG_HAS_IGNORE_FLAGS  0x0400
> > > +#define FSNOTIFY_MARK_FLAG_HAS_FSID          0x0800
> > >       unsigned int flags;             /* flags [mark->lock] */
> > >  };
> >
> > So this flag is in fact private to fanotify notification framework. Either
> > we could just drop this flag and use
> >
> >   FANOTIFY_MARK(mark)->fsid[0] != 0 || FANOTIFY_MARK(mark)->fsid[1] != 0
> 
> Cannot.
> Zero fsid is now a valid fsid in an inode mark (e.g. fuse).
> The next patch also adds the flag FSNOTIFY_MARK_FLAG_WEAK_FSID

Yeah, I've realized that once I've digested the second patch.

> > instead or we could at least add a comment that this flags is in fact
> > private to fanotify?
> 
> There is already a comment, because all the flags above are fanotify flags:
> 
>         /* fanotify mark flags */
> #define FSNOTIFY_MARK_FLAG_IGNORED_SURV_MODIFY  0x0100
> #define FSNOTIFY_MARK_FLAG_NO_IREF              0x0200
> #define FSNOTIFY_MARK_FLAG_HAS_IGNORE_FLAGS     0x0400

Right, I should have checked more that the diff context ;) Sorry for the
noise.

								Honza
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@suse.com>
SUSE Labs, CR