linux-kernel - stable-rc: 5.4 and 5.10: fanotify01.c:339: TFAIL: fanotify_mark(fd_notify, 0x00000001, 0x00000008, -100, ".") expected EXDEV: ENODEV (19)

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CA+G9fYtJO4DbiabJwpSamTPHjPzyrD3O6ZCwm2+CDEUA7f+ZYw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2025 12:33:43 +0530
From: Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@...aro.org>
To: LTP List <ltp@...ts.linux.it>, open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, 
	linux-stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>, lkft-triage@...ts.linaro.org, 
	Linux Regressions <regressions@...ts.linux.dev>
Cc: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com>, chrubis <chrubis@...e.cz>, 
	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Petr Vorel <pvorel@...e.cz>, 
	Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, 
	Anders Roxell <anders.roxell@...aro.org>
Subject: stable-rc: 5.4 and 5.10: fanotify01.c:339: TFAIL: fanotify_mark(fd_notify,
 0x00000001, 0x00000008, -100, ".") expected EXDEV: ENODEV (19)

Regression in the LTP syscalls/fanotify01 test on the Linux stable-rc 5.4
and 5.10 kernel after upgrading to LTP version 20250530.

 - The test passed with LTP version 20250130
 - The test fails with LTP version 20250530

Regressions found on stable-rc 5.4 and 5.10 LTP syscalls fanotify01.c
fanotify_mark expected EXDEV: ENODEV (19)

Regression Analysis:
 - New regression? Yes
 - Reproducibility? Yes

Test regression: stable-rc 5.4 and 5.10

Reported-by: Linux Kernel Functional Testing <lkft@...aro.org>

fanotify01.c:339: TFAIL: fanotify_mark(fd_notify, 0x00000001,
0x00000008, -100, ".") expected EXDEV: ENODEV (19)

The test expected fanotify_mark() to fail with EXDEV, but received
ENODEV instead. This indicates a potential mismatch between updated
LTP test expectations and the behavior of the 5.4 kernel’s fanotify
implementation.

Test log,
--

fanotify01.c:94: TINFO: Test #3: inode mark events (FAN_REPORT_FID)
fanotify01.c:301: TPASS: got event: mask=31 pid=2364 fd=-1
...
fanotify01.c:301: TPASS: got event: mask=8 pid=2364 fd=-1
fanotify01.c:339: TFAIL: fanotify_mark(fd_notify, 0x00000001,
0x00000008, -100, ".") expected EXDEV: ENODEV (19)
fanotify01.c:94: TINFO: Test #4: mount mark events (FAN_REPORT_FID)
fanotify01.c:301: TPASS: got event: mask=31 pid=2364 fd=-1
...
fanotify01.c:301: TPASS: got event: mask=8 pid=2364 fd=-1
fanotify01.c:339: TFAIL: fanotify_mark(fd_notify, 0x00000001,
0x00000008, -100, ".") expected EXDEV: ENODEV (19)
fanotify01.c:94: TINFO: Test #5: filesystem mark events (FAN_REPORT_FID)
fanotify01.c:301: TPASS: got event: mask=31 pid=2364 fd=-1
...
fanotify01.c:301: TPASS: got event: mask=8 pid=2364 fd=-1
fanotify01.c:339: TFAIL: fanotify_mark(fd_notify, 0x00000001,
0x00000008, -100, ".") expected EXDEV: ENODEV (19)


## Test logs
* Build details:
https://regressions.linaro.org/lkft/linux-stable-rc-linux-5.4.y/v5.4.294-223-g7ff2d32362e4/ltp-syscalls/fanotify01/
* Build detail 2:
https://regressions.linaro.org/lkft/linux-stable-rc-linux-5.10.y/v5.10.238-353-g9dc843c66f6f/ltp-syscalls/fanotify01/
* Test log: https://qa-reports.linaro.org/api/testruns/28859312/log_file/
* Issue: https://regressions.linaro.org/-/known-issues/6609/
* Test LAVA job 1:
https://lkft.validation.linaro.org/scheduler/job/8329278#L28572
* Test LAVA job 2:
https://lkft.validation.linaro.org/scheduler/job/8326518#L28491
* Build link: https://storage.tuxsuite.com/public/linaro/lkft/builds/2yxHGvVkVpcbKqPahSKRnlITnVS/
* Build config:
https://storage.tuxsuite.com/public/linaro/lkft/builds/2yxHGvVkVpcbKqPahSKRnlITnVS/bzImage


--
Linaro LKFT
https://lkft.linaro.org