linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] selftests: fanotify: Add basic create/modify/delete event

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

Message-ID: <kn2il642ie7z3obmojppjd7kdyswuqrkpsabozeyvm62va64ak@6ss43nmzmjl6>
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2026 13:21:26 +0100
From: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
To: Jinseok Kim <always.starving0@...il.com>
Cc: jack@...e.cz, amir73il@...il.com, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, repnop@...gle.com, 
	shuah@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] selftests: fanotify: Add basic create/modify/delete
 event

Hello!

On Thu 05-02-26 19:04:34, Jinseok Kim wrote:
> Thanks for the feedback!
> 
> I agree LTP has very comprehensive fanotify/inotify tests.
> 
> However, the motivation for adding basic tests to kernel selftests is:
>     - Quick and lightweight regression checking during kernel
>     development/boot (no external LTP install needed)
>     - Non-root basic cases (many LTP tests require root or complex setup)

Hum, I don't quite buy the "LTP is difficult to run" argument. I find it as
hard as running kernel selftests to be honest :). I don't even bother
installing LTP and just directly run testcases from LTP source tree. The
"LTP tests require root" is a valid argument but not really problematic for
the setup I use.

The point I'm trying to make is: I'm not strictly opposed to fanotify
kernel selftests but they do add some maintenance burden and I don't see the
usefulness of this. So maybe can you start with explaining your usecase -
how are these tests going to make your life easier?

> Do you think a different approach (LTP improvement instead)
> would be better?

As Amir wrote we definitely don't plan on moving all tests from LTP to
selftests so if you are missing some functionality from tests in LTP, it
would be good to add it there...

								Honza
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>
SUSE Labs, CR