linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH 5.10 387/770] fanotify: Allow users to request FAN_FS

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAOQ4uxiWttnpLBbFzVjQLKbeubbwWG35pn3Ve_majuV9a0mPJQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2024 09:52:27 +0300
From: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com>
To: Chuck Lever III <chuck.lever@...cle.com>
Cc: Ajay Kaher <ajay.kaher@...adcom.com>, 
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, "jack@...e.cz" <jack@...e.cz>, 
	"krisman@...labora.com" <krisman@...labora.com>, "patches@...ts.linux.dev" <patches@...ts.linux.dev>, 
	"sashal@...nel.org" <sashal@...nel.org>, "stable@...r.kernel.org" <stable@...r.kernel.org>, 
	"adilger.kernel@...ger.ca" <adilger.kernel@...ger.ca>, 
	"linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org" <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>, "tytso@....edu" <tytso@....edu>, 
	"alexey.makhalov@...adcom.com" <alexey.makhalov@...adcom.com>, 
	"vasavi.sirnapalli@...adcom.com" <vasavi.sirnapalli@...adcom.com>, 
	"florian.fainelli@...adcom.com" <florian.fainelli@...adcom.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5.10 387/770] fanotify: Allow users to request
 FAN_FS_ERROR events

On Tue, Jul 23, 2024 at 4:48 PM Chuck Lever III <chuck.lever@...cle.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 23, 2024, at 5:20 AM, Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 23, 2024 at 10:06 AM Ajay Kaher <ajay.kaher@...adcom.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> [ Upstream commit 9709bd548f11a092d124698118013f66e1740f9b ]
> >>>
> >>> Wire up the FAN_FS_ERROR event in the fanotify_mark syscall, allowing
> >>> user space to request the monitoring of FAN_FS_ERROR events.
> >>>
> >>> These events are limited to filesystem marks, so check it is the
> >>> case in the syscall handler.
> >>
> >> Greg,
> >>
> >> Without 9709bd548f11 in v5.10.y skips LTP fanotify22 test case, as:
> >> fanotify22.c:312: TCONF: FAN_FS_ERROR not supported in kernel
> >>
> >> With 9709bd548f11 in v5.10.220, LTP fanotify22 is failing because of
> >> timeout as no notification. To fix need to merge following two upstream
> >> commit to v5.10:
> >>
> >> 124e7c61deb27d758df5ec0521c36cf08d417f7a:
> >> 0001-ext4_fix_error_code_saved_on_super_block_during_file_system.patch
> >> https://lore.kernel.org/stable/1721717240-8786-1-git-send-email-ajay.kaher@broadcom.com/T/#mf76930487697d8c1383ed5d21678fe504e8e2305
> >>
> >> 9a089b21f79b47eed240d4da7ea0d049de7c9b4d:
> >> 0001-ext4_Send_notifications_on_error.patch
> >> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/stable/1721717240-8786-1-git-send-email-ajay.kaher@broadcom.com/T/#md1be98e0ecafe4f92d7b61c048e15bcf286cbd53
> >>
> >> -Ajay
> >
> > I agree that this is the best approach, because the test has no other
> > way to test
> > if ext4 specifically supports FAN_FS_ERROR.
> >
> > Chuck,
> >
> > I wonder how those patches end up in 5.15.y but not in 5.10.y?
>
> The process was by hand. I tried to copy the same
> commit ID set from 5.15 to 5.10, but some patches
> did not apply to 5.10, or may have been omitted
> unintentionally.
>
>
> > Also, since you backported *most* of this series:
> > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20211025192746.66445-1-krisman@collabora.com/
> >
> > I think it would be wise to also backport the sample code and documentation
> > patches to 5.15.y and 5.10.y.
> >
> > 9abeae5d4458 docs: Fix formatting of literal sections in fanotify docs
> > 8fc70b3a142f samples: Make fs-monitor depend on libc and headers
> > c0baf9ac0b05 docs: Document the FAN_FS_ERROR event
> > 5451093081db samples: Add fs error monitoring example.
> >
> > Gabriel, if 9abeae5d4458 has a Fixes: tag it may have been auto seleced
> > for 5.15.y after c0baf9ac0b05 was picked up...
>
> Or this... I might not have backported those at all
> to 5.15, and they got pulled in by another process.
>
> In any event, do you want me to backport these to
> 5.10, or would you like to do it yourself?
>

Please backport the docs and sample patches above to 5.15 and 5.10
for completion of the backport.

I do not expect you should have any major conflicts with these standalone
document and sample code.

Thanks,
Amir.