From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:51192 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1730671AbeKGDNB (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Nov 2018 22:13:01 -0500 Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2018 12:46:41 -0500 From: Sasha Levin To: Amir Goldstein Cc: pvorel@suse.cz, Cyril Hrubis , ltp@lists.linux.it, Sasha Levin , Jan Kara , stable Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] syscalls/fanotify10: Require kernel v4.19 Message-ID: <20181106174641.GE151445@sasha-vm> References: <20181106124802.27170-1-pvorel@suse.cz> <20181106125015.GB4834@rei.lan> <20181106125556.GA28469@dell5510> <20181106130641.GB28469@dell5510> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: stable-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Nov 06, 2018 at 03:32:33PM +0200, Amir Goldstein wrote: >On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 3:06 PM Petr Vorel 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 From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sasha Levin Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2018 12:46:41 -0500 Subject: [LTP] [PATCH 1/1] syscalls/fanotify10: Require kernel v4.19 In-Reply-To: References: <20181106124802.27170-1-pvorel@suse.cz> <20181106125015.GB4834@rei.lan> <20181106125556.GA28469@dell5510> <20181106130641.GB28469@dell5510> Message-ID: <20181106174641.GE151445@sasha-vm> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: ltp@lists.linux.it On Tue, Nov 06, 2018 at 03:32:33PM +0200, Amir Goldstein wrote: >On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 3:06 PM Petr Vorel 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