* [LTP] [PATCH 1/1] syscalls/fanotify10: Require kernel v4.19 @ 2018-11-06 12:48 Petr Vorel 2018-11-06 12:50 ` Cyril Hrubis 0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Petr Vorel @ 2018-11-06 12:48 UTC (permalink / raw) To: ltp FAN_MARK_INODE and FAN_MARK_MOUNT were added in v4.19-rc2: d54f4fba889b fanotify: add API to attach/detach super block mark Fixes: 16f127f4a syscalls/fanotify10: new test for mount ignore mask Signed-off-by: Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz> --- testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/fanotify10.c | 3 ++- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/fanotify10.c b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/fanotify10.c index 2b96de2f1..bfc60cf89 100644 --- a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/fanotify10.c +++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/fanotify10.c @@ -298,7 +298,8 @@ static struct tst_test test = { .mount_device = 1, .mntpoint = MOUNT_PATH, .needs_tmpdir = 1, - .needs_root = 1 + .needs_root = 1, + .min_kver = "4.19", }; #else -- 2.19.1 ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [LTP] [PATCH 1/1] syscalls/fanotify10: Require kernel v4.19 2018-11-06 12:48 [LTP] [PATCH 1/1] syscalls/fanotify10: Require kernel v4.19 Petr Vorel @ 2018-11-06 12:50 ` Cyril Hrubis 2018-11-06 12:55 ` Petr Vorel 0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Cyril Hrubis @ 2018-11-06 12:50 UTC (permalink / raw) To: ltp Hi! > FAN_MARK_INODE and FAN_MARK_MOUNT were added in v4.19-rc2: > d54f4fba889b fanotify: add API to attach/detach super block mark > > Fixes: 16f127f4a syscalls/fanotify10: new test for mount ignore mask I would slightly prefer handling whatever error we get from fanotify so that the test would also work in a case that the functionality would get backported to older kernel. But if that's not easily done we may as well go for the kernel version detection. > Signed-off-by: Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz> > --- > testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/fanotify10.c | 3 ++- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/fanotify10.c b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/fanotify10.c > index 2b96de2f1..bfc60cf89 100644 > --- a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/fanotify10.c > +++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/fanotify10.c > @@ -298,7 +298,8 @@ static struct tst_test test = { > .mount_device = 1, > .mntpoint = MOUNT_PATH, > .needs_tmpdir = 1, > - .needs_root = 1 > + .needs_root = 1, > + .min_kver = "4.19", > }; > > #else > -- > 2.19.1 > -- Cyril Hrubis chrubis@suse.cz ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [LTP] [PATCH 1/1] syscalls/fanotify10: Require kernel v4.19 2018-11-06 12:50 ` Cyril Hrubis @ 2018-11-06 12:55 ` Petr Vorel 2018-11-06 12:59 ` Amir Goldstein 0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Petr Vorel @ 2018-11-06 12:55 UTC (permalink / raw) To: ltp Hi, > > FAN_MARK_INODE and FAN_MARK_MOUNT were added in v4.19-rc2: > > d54f4fba889b fanotify: add API to attach/detach super block mark > > Fixes: 16f127f4a syscalls/fanotify10: new test for mount ignore mask > I would slightly prefer handling whatever error we get from fanotify so > that the test would also work in a case that the functionality would get > backported to older kernel. But if that's not easily done we may as well > go for the kernel version detection. Make sense. Amir, any idea, how to do that? > > + .min_kver = "4.19", Kind regards, Petr ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [LTP] [PATCH 1/1] syscalls/fanotify10: Require kernel v4.19 2018-11-06 12:55 ` Petr Vorel @ 2018-11-06 12:59 ` Amir Goldstein 2018-11-06 13:06 ` Petr Vorel 0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Amir Goldstein @ 2018-11-06 12:59 UTC (permalink / raw) To: ltp On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 2:55 PM Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > FAN_MARK_INODE and FAN_MARK_MOUNT were added in v4.19-rc2: > > > d54f4fba889b fanotify: add API to attach/detach super block mark > > > > Fixes: 16f127f4a syscalls/fanotify10: new test for mount ignore mask > > > I would slightly prefer handling whatever error we get from fanotify so > > that the test would also work in a case that the functionality would get > > backported to older kernel. But if that's not easily done we may as well > > go for the kernel version detection. > Make sense. Amir, any idea, how to do that? > There must be some confusion. FAN_MARK_MOUNT was NOT added in v4.19-rc2. It has been there from the start. FAN_MARK_INODE was NOT added either the define FAN_MARK_INODE 0 is just a convenience readability define it does not change the API. You may be confusing with FAN_MARK_FILESYSTEM just was just added in kernel v4.20-rc1. The extension of tests to cover FAN_MARK_FILESYSTEM is waiting in my queue: https://github.com/amir73il/ltp/commits/fanotify_sb And it already includes runtime checks for FAN_MARK_FILESYSTEM support. Did I miss anything? Thanks, Amir. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [LTP] [PATCH 1/1] syscalls/fanotify10: Require kernel v4.19 2018-11-06 12:59 ` Amir Goldstein @ 2018-11-06 13:06 ` Petr Vorel 2018-11-06 13:32 ` [LTP] " Amir Goldstein 0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Petr Vorel @ 2018-11-06 13:06 UTC (permalink / raw) To: ltp Hi Amir, > There must be some confusion. > FAN_MARK_MOUNT was NOT added in v4.19-rc2. > It has been there from the start. > FAN_MARK_INODE was NOT added either > the define FAN_MARK_INODE 0 is just a convenience readability define > it does not change the API. I'm sorry, you're right. > You may be confusing with FAN_MARK_FILESYSTEM > just was just added in kernel v4.20-rc1. > The extension of tests to cover FAN_MARK_FILESYSTEM > is waiting in my queue: > https://github.com/amir73il/ltp/commits/fanotify_sb > And it already includes runtime checks for FAN_MARK_FILESYSTEM > support. > Did I miss anything? Testing your branch on older kernel, fanotify10 fails earlier than new TCONF checks: tst_device.c:83: INFO: Found free device '/dev/loop0' tst_mkfs.c:90: INFO: Formatting /dev/loop0 with ext2 opts='' extra opts='' mke2fs 1.44.2 (14-May-2018) tst_test.c:1085: INFO: Timeout per run is 0h 05m 00s fanotify10.c:233: INFO: Test #0: ignore mount events created on a specific file fanotify10.c:221: PASS: group 0 got event: mask 20 pid=6942 fd=12 fanotify10.c:221: PASS: group 1 got event: mask 20 pid=6942 fd=12 fanotify10.c:221: PASS: group 2 got event: mask 20 pid=6942 fd=12 fanotify10.c:299: PASS: group 0 (prio 1) with FAN_MARK_MOUNT and FAN_MARK_INODE ignore mask got no event fanotify10.c:299: PASS: group 1 (prio 1) with FAN_MARK_MOUNT and FAN_MARK_INODE ignore mask got no event fanotify10.c:299: PASS: group 2 (prio 1) with FAN_MARK_MOUNT and FAN_MARK_INODE ignore mask got no event fanotify10.c:299: PASS: group 0 (prio 2) with FAN_MARK_MOUNT and FAN_MARK_INODE ignore mask got no event fanotify10.c:299: PASS: group 1 (prio 2) with FAN_MARK_MOUNT and FAN_MARK_INODE ignore mask got no event fanotify10.c:299: PASS: group 2 (prio 2) with FAN_MARK_MOUNT and FAN_MARK_INODE ignore mask got no event fanotify10.c:233: INFO: Test #1: don't ignore mount events created on another file fanotify10.c:221: PASS: group 0 got event: mask 20 pid=6942 fd=12 fanotify10.c:221: PASS: group 1 got event: mask 20 pid=6942 fd=12 fanotify10.c:221: PASS: group 2 got event: mask 20 pid=6942 fd=12 fanotify10.c:221: PASS: group 0 got event: mask 20 pid=6942 fd=12 fanotify10.c:221: PASS: group 1 got event: mask 20 pid=6942 fd=12 fanotify10.c:221: PASS: group 2 got event: mask 20 pid=6942 fd=12 fanotify10.c:221: PASS: group 0 got event: mask 20 pid=6942 fd=12 fanotify10.c:221: PASS: group 1 got event: mask 20 pid=6942 fd=12 fanotify10.c:221: PASS: group 2 got event: mask 20 pid=6942 fd=12 fanotify10.c:233: INFO: Test #2: ignore inode events created on a specific mount point fanotify10.c:221: PASS: group 0 got event: mask 20 pid=6942 fd=12 fanotify10.c:221: PASS: group 1 got event: mask 20 pid=6942 fd=12 fanotify10.c:221: PASS: group 2 got event: mask 20 pid=6942 fd=12 fanotify10.c:293: FAIL: group 0 (prio 1) with FAN_MARK_INODE and FAN_MARK_MOUNT ignore mask got event fanotify10.c:293: FAIL: group 1 (prio 1) with FAN_MARK_INODE and FAN_MARK_MOUNT ignore mask got event fanotify10.c:293: FAIL: group 2 (prio 1) with FAN_MARK_INODE and FAN_MARK_MOUNT ignore mask got event fanotify10.c:293: FAIL: group 0 (prio 2) with FAN_MARK_INODE and FAN_MARK_MOUNT ignore mask got event fanotify10.c:293: FAIL: group 1 (prio 2) with FAN_MARK_INODE and FAN_MARK_MOUNT ignore mask got event fanotify10.c:293: FAIL: group 2 (prio 2) with FAN_MARK_INODE and FAN_MARK_MOUNT ignore mask got event fanotify10.c:233: INFO: Test #3: don't ignore inode events created on another mount point fanotify10.c:221: PASS: group 0 got event: mask 20 pid=6942 fd=12 fanotify10.c:221: PASS: group 1 got event: mask 20 pid=6942 fd=12 fanotify10.c:221: PASS: group 2 got event: mask 20 pid=6942 fd=12 fanotify10.c:221: PASS: group 0 got event: mask 20 pid=6942 fd=12 fanotify10.c:221: PASS: group 1 got event: mask 20 pid=6942 fd=12 fanotify10.c:221: PASS: group 2 got event: mask 20 pid=6942 fd=12 fanotify10.c:221: PASS: group 0 got event: mask 20 pid=6942 fd=12 fanotify10.c:221: PASS: group 1 got event: mask 20 pid=6942 fd=12 fanotify10.c:221: PASS: group 2 got event: mask 20 pid=6942 fd=12 fanotify10.c:233: INFO: Test #4: ignore fs events created on a specific file fanotify10.c:162: CONF: FAN_MARK_FILESYSTEM not supported in kernel? fanotify10.c:233: INFO: Test #5: don't ignore mount events created on another file fanotify10.c:162: CONF: FAN_MARK_FILESYSTEM not supported in kernel? fanotify10.c:233: INFO: Test #6: ignore fs events created on a specific mount point fanotify10.c:162: CONF: FAN_MARK_FILESYSTEM not supported in kernel? fanotify10.c:233: INFO: Test #7: don't ignore fs events created on another mount point fanotify10.c:162: CONF: FAN_MARK_FILESYSTEM not supported in kernel? Summary: passed 30 failed 6 skipped 4 warnings 0 Kind regards, Petr ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 1/1] syscalls/fanotify10: Require kernel v4.19 2018-11-06 13:06 ` Petr Vorel @ 2018-11-06 13:32 ` Amir Goldstein 0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread From: Amir Goldstein @ 2018-11-06 13:32 UTC (permalink / raw) To: pvorel; +Cc: Cyril Hrubis, ltp, Sasha Levin, Jan Kara, stable [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1132 bytes --] On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 3:06 PM Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz> wrote: > > Hi Amir, > > > There must be some confusion. > > FAN_MARK_MOUNT was NOT added in v4.19-rc2. > > It has been there from the start. > > FAN_MARK_INODE was NOT added either > > the define FAN_MARK_INODE 0 is just a convenience readability define > > it does not change the API. > I'm sorry, you're right. > > > You may be confusing with FAN_MARK_FILESYSTEM > > just was just added in kernel v4.20-rc1. > > The extension of tests to cover FAN_MARK_FILESYSTEM > > is waiting in my queue: > > https://github.com/amir73il/ltp/commits/fanotify_sb > > > And it already includes runtime checks for FAN_MARK_FILESYSTEM > > support. > > > Did I miss anything? > Testing your branch on older kernel, fanotify10 fails earlier than new TCONF Because fanotify10 checks for a bug that existed since the beginning and fixed by 9bdda4e9cf2d fsnotify: fix ignore mask logic in fsnotify(). So test SHOULD fail until the backported patch is applied to the old kernel. The patch does not apply cleanly to kernels <= v4.17. Tested backport patch for v4.14.y attached. Thanks, Amir. [-- Attachment #2: 0001-backport-fsnotify-fix-ignore-mask-logic-in-fsnotify.patch --] [-- Type: text/x-patch, Size: 2236 bytes --] From 657b3d5db0b930c7cdfa47131c48a24c64c08ae8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2018 09:40:01 +0300 Subject: [PATCH] fsnotify: fix ignore mask logic in fsnotify() Commit 92183a42898d ("fsnotify: fix ignore mask logic in send_to_group()") acknoledges the use case of ignoring an event on an inode mark, because of an ignore mask on a mount mark of the same group (i.e. I want to get all events on this file, except for the events that came from that mount). This change depends on correctly merging the inode marks and mount marks group lists, so that the mount mark ignore mask would be tested in send_to_group(). Alas, the merging of the lists did not take into account the case where event in question is not in the mask of any of the mount marks. To fix this, completely remove the tests for inode and mount event masks from the lists merging code. Fixes: 92183a42898d ("fsnotify: fix ignore mask logic in send_to_group") Signed-off-by: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> [amir: backport to v4.14.y] Signed-off-by: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com> --- fs/notify/fsnotify.c | 14 +++++--------- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) diff --git a/fs/notify/fsnotify.c b/fs/notify/fsnotify.c index d76c81323dc1..2bc61e7543dd 100644 --- a/fs/notify/fsnotify.c +++ b/fs/notify/fsnotify.c @@ -286,17 +286,13 @@ int fsnotify(struct inode *to_tell, __u32 mask, const void *data, int data_is, iter_info.srcu_idx = srcu_read_lock(&fsnotify_mark_srcu); - if ((mask & FS_MODIFY) || - (test_mask & to_tell->i_fsnotify_mask)) { - inode_conn = srcu_dereference(to_tell->i_fsnotify_marks, + inode_conn = srcu_dereference(to_tell->i_fsnotify_marks, + &fsnotify_mark_srcu); + if (inode_conn) + inode_node = srcu_dereference(inode_conn->list.first, &fsnotify_mark_srcu); - if (inode_conn) - inode_node = srcu_dereference(inode_conn->list.first, - &fsnotify_mark_srcu); - } - if (mnt && ((mask & FS_MODIFY) || - (test_mask & mnt->mnt_fsnotify_mask))) { + if (mnt) { inode_conn = srcu_dereference(to_tell->i_fsnotify_marks, &fsnotify_mark_srcu); if (inode_conn) -- 2.7.4 ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [LTP] [PATCH 1/1] syscalls/fanotify10: Require kernel v4.19 @ 2018-11-06 13:32 ` Amir Goldstein 0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread From: Amir Goldstein @ 2018-11-06 13:32 UTC (permalink / raw) To: ltp On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 3:06 PM Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz> wrote: > > Hi Amir, > > > There must be some confusion. > > FAN_MARK_MOUNT was NOT added in v4.19-rc2. > > It has been there from the start. > > FAN_MARK_INODE was NOT added either > > the define FAN_MARK_INODE 0 is just a convenience readability define > > it does not change the API. > I'm sorry, you're right. > > > You may be confusing with FAN_MARK_FILESYSTEM > > just was just added in kernel v4.20-rc1. > > The extension of tests to cover FAN_MARK_FILESYSTEM > > is waiting in my queue: > > https://github.com/amir73il/ltp/commits/fanotify_sb > > > And it already includes runtime checks for FAN_MARK_FILESYSTEM > > support. > > > Did I miss anything? > Testing your branch on older kernel, fanotify10 fails earlier than new TCONF Because fanotify10 checks for a bug that existed since the beginning and fixed by 9bdda4e9cf2d fsnotify: fix ignore mask logic in fsnotify(). So test SHOULD fail until the backported patch is applied to the old kernel. The patch does not apply cleanly to kernels <= v4.17. Tested backport patch for v4.14.y attached. Thanks, Amir. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 0001-backport-fsnotify-fix-ignore-mask-logic-in-fsnotify.patch Type: text/x-patch Size: 2236 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://lists.linux.it/pipermail/ltp/attachments/20181106/2894ab23/attachment.bin> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 1/1] syscalls/fanotify10: Require kernel v4.19 2018-11-06 13:32 ` [LTP] " Amir Goldstein @ 2018-11-06 17:46 ` Sasha Levin -1 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread From: Sasha Levin @ 2018-11-06 17:46 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Amir Goldstein; +Cc: pvorel, Cyril Hrubis, ltp, Sasha Levin, Jan Kara, stable On Tue, Nov 06, 2018 at 03:32:33PM +0200, Amir Goldstein wrote: >On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 3:06 PM Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz> wrote: >> >> Hi Amir, >> >> > There must be some confusion. >> > FAN_MARK_MOUNT was NOT added in v4.19-rc2. >> > It has been there from the start. >> > FAN_MARK_INODE was NOT added either >> > the define FAN_MARK_INODE 0 is just a convenience readability define >> > it does not change the API. >> I'm sorry, you're right. >> >> > You may be confusing with FAN_MARK_FILESYSTEM >> > just was just added in kernel v4.20-rc1. >> > The extension of tests to cover FAN_MARK_FILESYSTEM >> > is waiting in my queue: >> > https://github.com/amir73il/ltp/commits/fanotify_sb >> >> > And it already includes runtime checks for FAN_MARK_FILESYSTEM >> > support. >> >> > Did I miss anything? >> Testing your branch on older kernel, fanotify10 fails earlier than new TCONF > >Because fanotify10 checks for a bug that existed since the beginning >and fixed by 9bdda4e9cf2d fsnotify: fix ignore mask logic in fsnotify(). >So test SHOULD fail until the backported patch is applied to the old kernel. > >The patch does not apply cleanly to kernels <= v4.17. >Tested backport patch for v4.14.y attached. Queued for 4.14, thanks Amir. -- Thanks, Sasha ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [LTP] [PATCH 1/1] syscalls/fanotify10: Require kernel v4.19 @ 2018-11-06 17:46 ` Sasha Levin 0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread From: Sasha Levin @ 2018-11-06 17:46 UTC (permalink / raw) To: ltp On Tue, Nov 06, 2018 at 03:32:33PM +0200, Amir Goldstein wrote: >On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 3:06 PM Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz> wrote: >> >> Hi Amir, >> >> > There must be some confusion. >> > FAN_MARK_MOUNT was NOT added in v4.19-rc2. >> > It has been there from the start. >> > FAN_MARK_INODE was NOT added either >> > the define FAN_MARK_INODE 0 is just a convenience readability define >> > it does not change the API. >> I'm sorry, you're right. >> >> > You may be confusing with FAN_MARK_FILESYSTEM >> > just was just added in kernel v4.20-rc1. >> > The extension of tests to cover FAN_MARK_FILESYSTEM >> > is waiting in my queue: >> > https://github.com/amir73il/ltp/commits/fanotify_sb >> >> > And it already includes runtime checks for FAN_MARK_FILESYSTEM >> > support. >> >> > Did I miss anything? >> Testing your branch on older kernel, fanotify10 fails earlier than new TCONF > >Because fanotify10 checks for a bug that existed since the beginning >and fixed by 9bdda4e9cf2d fsnotify: fix ignore mask logic in fsnotify(). >So test SHOULD fail until the backported patch is applied to the old kernel. > >The patch does not apply cleanly to kernels <= v4.17. >Tested backport patch for v4.14.y attached. Queued for 4.14, thanks Amir. -- Thanks, Sasha ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [LTP] [PATCH 1/1] syscalls/fanotify10: Require kernel v4.19 2018-11-06 13:32 ` [LTP] " Amir Goldstein (?) (?) @ 2018-11-12 13:11 ` Petr Vorel -1 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread From: Petr Vorel @ 2018-11-12 13:11 UTC (permalink / raw) To: ltp Hi Amir, > > > Did I miss anything? > > Testing your branch on older kernel, fanotify10 fails earlier than new TCONF > Because fanotify10 checks for a bug that existed since the beginning > and fixed by 9bdda4e9cf2d fsnotify: fix ignore mask logic in fsnotify(). > So test SHOULD fail until the backported patch is applied to the old kernel. > The patch does not apply cleanly to kernels <= v4.17. > Tested backport patch for v4.14.y attached. Thanks for info and Cc us for your patch in kernel. > Thanks, > Amir. Kind regards, Petr ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2018-11-12 13:11 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 10+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2018-11-06 12:48 [LTP] [PATCH 1/1] syscalls/fanotify10: Require kernel v4.19 Petr Vorel 2018-11-06 12:50 ` Cyril Hrubis 2018-11-06 12:55 ` Petr Vorel 2018-11-06 12:59 ` Amir Goldstein 2018-11-06 13:06 ` Petr Vorel 2018-11-06 13:32 ` Amir Goldstein 2018-11-06 13:32 ` [LTP] " Amir Goldstein 2018-11-06 17:46 ` Sasha Levin 2018-11-06 17:46 ` [LTP] " Sasha Levin 2018-11-12 13:11 ` Petr Vorel
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.