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@linaro.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... * Build detail 2: https://regressions.linaro.org/lkft/linux-stable-rc-linux-5.10.y/v5.10.238-3... * 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/2yxHGvVkVpcbKqPahSKRn... * Build config: https://storage.tuxsuite.com/public/linaro/lkft/builds/2yxHGvVkVpcbKqPahSKRn...
-- Linaro LKFT https://lkft.linaro.org
On Thu, Jun 26, 2025 at 9:03 AM Naresh Kamboju naresh.kamboju@linaro.org wrote:
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@linaro.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.
Yap, that's true.
The change to fanotify01: * db197b7b5 - fanotify01: fix test failure when running with nfs TMPDIR
Depends on this kernel change from v6.8: * 30ad1938326b - fanotify: allow "weak" fsid when watching a single filesystem
Which fs type is your LTP TMPDIR?
Can you please test this fix:
--- a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/fanotify01.c +++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/fanotify01.c @@ -374,7 +374,21 @@ static void setup(void) }
if (fanotify_flags_supported_on_fs(FAN_REPORT_FID, FAN_MARK_MOUNT, FAN_OPEN, ".")) { - inode_mark_fid_xdev = (errno == ENODEV) ? EXDEV : errno; + inode_mark_fid_xdev = errno; + if (inode_mark_fid_xdev == ENODEV) { + /* + * The fs on TMPDIR has zero fsid. + * On kernels < v6.8 an inode mark fails with ENODEV. + * On kernels >= v6.8 an inode mark is allowed but multi + * fs inode marks will fail with EXDEV. + * See kernel commit 30ad1938326b + * ("fanotify: allow "weak" fsid when watching a single filesystem"). + */ + if (fanotify_flags_supported_on_fs(FAN_REPORT_FID, FAN_MARK_INODE, FAN_OPEN, ".")) + inode_mark_fid_xdev = errno; + else + inode_mark_fid_xdev = EXDEV; + } tst_res(TINFO | TERRNO, "TMPDIR does not support reporting events with fid from multi fs"); } }
Thanks, Amir.
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...
- Build detail 2:
https://regressions.linaro.org/lkft/linux-stable-rc-linux-5.10.y/v5.10.238-3...
- 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/2yxHGvVkVpcbKqPahSKRn...
- Build config:
https://storage.tuxsuite.com/public/linaro/lkft/builds/2yxHGvVkVpcbKqPahSKRn...
-- Linaro LKFT https://lkft.linaro.org
On Thu, Jun 26, 2025 at 11:57 AM Amir Goldstein amir73il@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 26, 2025 at 9:03 AM Naresh Kamboju naresh.kamboju@linaro.org wrote:
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@linaro.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.
Yap, that's true.
The change to fanotify01:
- db197b7b5 - fanotify01: fix test failure when running with nfs TMPDIR
Depends on this kernel change from v6.8:
- 30ad1938326b - fanotify: allow "weak" fsid when watching a single filesystem
Which fs type is your LTP TMPDIR?
Can you please test this fix:
--- a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/fanotify01.c +++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/fanotify01.c @@ -374,7 +374,21 @@ static void setup(void) }
if (fanotify_flags_supported_on_fs(FAN_REPORT_FID,FAN_MARK_MOUNT, FAN_OPEN, ".")) {
inode_mark_fid_xdev = (errno == ENODEV) ? EXDEV : errno;
inode_mark_fid_xdev = errno;if (inode_mark_fid_xdev == ENODEV) {/** The fs on TMPDIR has zero fsid.* On kernels < v6.8 an inode mark fails with ENODEV.* On kernels >= v6.8 an inode mark is allowed but multi* fs inode marks will fail with EXDEV.* See kernel commit 30ad1938326b* ("fanotify: allow "weak" fsid when watchinga single filesystem").
*/if(fanotify_flags_supported_on_fs(FAN_REPORT_FID, FAN_MARK_INODE, FAN_OPEN, "."))
inode_mark_fid_xdev = errno;elseinode_mark_fid_xdev = EXDEV;} tst_res(TINFO | TERRNO, "TMPDIR does not supportreporting events with fid from multi fs"); } }
Please test the attached patch instead. It is simpler and more correct in some configurations.
Thanks, Amir.
-
Amir Goldstein -
Naresh Kamboju