From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 295B8C282C4 for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2019 11:14:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7EA52082F for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2019 11:14:03 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1549278844; bh=atUog+SaGDJeiLUwrVuBQdymFoZmqbYQ9GJDBfA64kI=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:List-ID:From; b=q6EEvwTFvjWHjwhAAEFbi/bNfUv2baIvVwQxuWdh6DANFplC8cMWN2xqQAbEnBEHv SkwkCq6BTDmsvvR355RxaCZzrOXe+UFtTyxzTqESsvPF43hb6N8Bp5f6wp4MKOVZ40 Dl4eiHWEnLUNM9vPnhYcYcaNvGfKiaiMXbVzHPdI= Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729474AbfBDLOC (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Feb 2019 06:14:02 -0500 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:60992 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728605AbfBDLOB (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Feb 2019 06:14:01 -0500 Received: from localhost (5356596B.cm-6-7b.dynamic.ziggo.nl [83.86.89.107]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A19D9207E0; Mon, 4 Feb 2019 11:14:00 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1549278841; bh=atUog+SaGDJeiLUwrVuBQdymFoZmqbYQ9GJDBfA64kI=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=BsxTFGxDwjj2VpLyFc9VKV9FNpMqzTAC46UEzIDH9bp6iI4nMrtYHSh7cv71K4Wt+ NuTZrWLHioEhwhniTEooUWcpKTt1LgWFEzzfFAsR5A4nGk1tWwlBe+85ku8j0uZ0JI FeE0ELjf/otJFRA5QY90/5oqwMEdQlgYe0GrDZxw= Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2019 12:03:39 +0100 From: Greg Kroah-Hartman To: Amir Goldstein Cc: linux-kernel , stable , Jan Kara Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.9 30/30] fanotify: fix handling of events on child sub-directory Message-ID: <20190204110339.GA19811@kroah.com> References: <20190204103605.271746870@linuxfoundation.org> <20190204103610.774179167@linuxfoundation.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.11.3 (2019-02-01) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Feb 04, 2019 at 12:48:00PM +0200, Amir Goldstein wrote: > On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 12:44 PM Greg Kroah-Hartman > wrote: > > > > 4.9-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know. > > > > ------------------ > > > > From: Amir Goldstein > > > > commit b469e7e47c8a075cc08bcd1e85d4365134bdcdd5 upstream. > > > > When an event is reported on a sub-directory and the parent inode has > > a mark mask with FS_EVENT_ON_CHILD|FS_ISDIR, the event will be sent to > > fsnotify() even if the event type is not in the parent mark mask > > (e.g. FS_OPEN). > > > > Further more, if that event happened on a mount or a filesystem with > > a mount/sb mark that does have that event type in their mask, the "on > > child" event will be reported on the mount/sb mark. That is not > > desired, because user will get a duplicate event for the same action. > > > > Note that the event reported on the victim inode is never merged with > > the event reported on the parent inode, because of the check in > > should_merge(): old_fsn->inode == new_fsn->inode. > > > > Fix this by looking for a match of an actual event type (i.e. not just > > FS_ISDIR) in parent's inode mark mask and by not reporting an "on child" > > event to group if event type is only found on mount/sb marks. > > > > [backport hint: The bug seems to have always been in fanotify, but this > > patch will only apply cleanly to v4.19.y] > > > > Same comment about this backport hint being misleading in the > context of the backport patch. I try to leave the text in the changelog identical to what is upstream to make it easier to track things. thanks, greg k-h