On Thu, Apr 29, 2021 at 11:40 AM Gabriel Krisman Bertazi
<krisman@collabora.com> wrote:
>
> Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 9:43 PM Gabriel Krisman Bertazi
> > <krisman@collabora.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> This patch introduces an optional info record that describes the
> >> source (as in the region of the source-code where an event was
> >> initiated).  This record is not produced for other type of existing
> >> notification, but it is optionally enabled for FAN_ERROR notifications.
> >>
> >
> > I find this functionality controversial, because think that the fs provided
> > s_last_error*, s_first_error* is more reliable and more powerful than this
> > functionality.
> >
> > Let's leave it for a future extending proposal, should fanotify event reporting
> > proposal pass muster, shall we?
> > Or do you think that without this optional extension fanotify event reporting
> > will not be valuable enough?
>
> I think it is valuable enough without this bit, at least on a first
> moment.  I understand it would be useful for ext4 to analyse information
> through this interface, but the main priority is to have a way to push
> out the information that an error occured, as you mentioned.

Ack, if it's deemed cleaner we could look at sysfs on notification,
but having the information in the same event provides some convenience
factor, and avoids racing in the event that we're looking at an error
after the first one.

>
> Also, this might be more powerful if we stick to the ring buffer instead
> of single stlot, as it would allow more data to be collected than just
> first/last.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Amir.
>
> --
> Gabriel Krisman Bertazi