Re: [PATCH 5.10 387/770] fanotify: Allow users to request FAN_FS_ERROR events

[Gabriel Krisman Bertazi <gabriel@krisman.be>]

Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com> writes:

> On Tue, Jul 23, 2024 at 10:06 AM Ajay Kaher <ajay.kaher@broadcom.com> wrote:
>> 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?

I wonder why this was backported to stable in the first place.  I get
there is a lot of refactoring in this series, which might be useful when
backporting further fixes. but 9709bd548f11 just enabled a new feature -
which seems against stable rules.  Considering that "anything is a CVE",
we really need to be cautious about this kind of stuff in stable
kernels.

Is it possible to drop 9709bd548f11 from stable instead?

> Gabriel, if 9abeae5d4458 has a Fixes: tag it may have been auto seleced
> for 5.15.y after c0baf9ac0b05 was picked up...

right.  It would be really cool if we had a way to append this
information after the fact.  How would people feel about using
git-notes in the kernel tree to support that?

-- 
Gabriel Krisman Bertazi