On Tue, Jun 21, 2022 at 06:04:33AM +0300, Amir Goldstein wrote:
On Mon, Jun 20, 2022 at 11:34 PM Greg KH gregkh@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
On Mon, Jun 20, 2022 at 05:16:16PM +0300, Amir Goldstein wrote:
On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 10:02 PM Amir Goldstein amir73il@gmail.com wrote:
The logic for handling events on child in groups that have a mark on the parent inode, but without FS_EVENT_ON_CHILD flag in the mask is duplicated in several places and inconsistent.
Move the logic into the preparation of mark type iterator, so that the parent mark type will be excluded from all mark type iterations in that case.
This results in several subtle changes of behavior, hopefully all desired changes of behavior, for example:
- Group A has a mount mark with FS_MODIFY in mask
- Group A has a mark with ignore mask that does not survive FS_MODIFY and does not watch children on directory D.
- Group B has a mark with FS_MODIFY in mask that does watch children on directory D.
- FS_MODIFY event on file D/foo should not clear the ignore mask of group A, but before this change it does
And if group A ignore mask was set to survive FS_MODIFY:
- FS_MODIFY event on file D/foo should be reported to group A on account of the mount mark, but before this change it is wrongly ignored
Fixes: 2f02fd3fa13e ("fanotify: fix ignore mask logic for events on child and on dir") Reported-by: Jan Kara jack@suse.com Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/20220314113337.j7slrb5srxukztje@quack3... Signed-off-by: Amir Goldstein amir73il@gmail.com
Greg,
FYI, this needs the previous commit to apply to 5.18.y:
What is "this" here? What git id?
Sorry, this commit:
e730558adffb fsnotify: consistent behavior for parent not watching children
Needs this previous commit:
14362a254179 fsnotify: introduce mark type iterator
They won't apply to earlier versions and this is a fix for a very minor bug that existed forever, so no need to bother.
So what exactly needs to be applied in what order and to what trees?
To apply to 5.18.y.
Now queued up, thanks.
Don't bother trying to apply either to earlier trees.
So the Fixes: tag lied? No wonder I was confused :)
thanks,
greg k-h