archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Matthew Bobrowski <>
To: Jan Kara <>, Amir Goldstein <>
Cc: Steve Grubb <>,
	linux-fsdevel <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] fanotify: introduce new event flag FAN_EXEC
Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2018 22:13:22 +1100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <>

Hi Jan/Amir,

On 4/10/18 2:33 am, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Wed 03-10-18 19:18:27, Amir Goldstein wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 6:40 PM Jan Kara <> 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.
> OK, didn't notice that. Thanks for educating me.
>> 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.
> Cool! Less work for me as I also had tingling in my fingers to clean up
> that mess, just didn't get to it yet :).
>>> 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.
> Exactly. Just I'd do the change to fanotify_should_send_event() as a
> separate patch and rename that function to something like
> fanotify_group_event_mask() or something like that to better express what
> it will do.

I've gone ahead and implemented the changes based on what we agreed above.
This first commit introduces the new event type FAN_OPEN_EXEC, as well as
adds the necessary check within the fsnotify_open() hook. You can find this
change here:

The second commit contains the necessary changes to
fanotify_should_send_event(). This function basically now returns the event
mask for the event containing flags ONLY set to those requested by the
user. You can find this change here:

Please provide feedback on the above.

Also, we haven't really discussed how we can incorporate this within
fsnotify_perm(). However, I was thinking that we can simply do something
along the lines of what I've done here (defining another flag



Kind regards,
Matthew Bobrowski

  parent reply	other threads:[~2018-10-07 18:20 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
2018-10-03 16:33             ` Jan Kara
2018-10-03 20:45               ` Matthew Bobrowski
2018-10-07 11:13               ` Matthew Bobrowski [this message]
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:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \ \ \ \ \ \ \

* 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).