From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pf1-f195.google.com ([209.85.210.195]:38968 "EHLO mail-pf1-f195.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726695AbeJRUHG (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Oct 2018 16:07:06 -0400 Received: by mail-pf1-f195.google.com with SMTP id c25-v6so14797158pfe.6 for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2018 05:06:23 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2018 23:06:16 +1100 From: Matthew Bobrowski To: Jan Kara Cc: amir73il@gmail.com, linux-api@vger.kernel.org, sgrubb@redhat.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 0/3] fanotify: introduce new event types FAN_OPEN_EXEC and FAN_OPEN_EXEC_PERM Message-ID: <20181018120615.GB3620@workstation> References: <20181018092821.GN23493@quack2.suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20181018092821.GN23493@quack2.suse.cz> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 11:28:21AM +0200, Jan Kara wrote: > On Wed 17-10-18 20:04:37, Matthew Bobrowski wrote: > > Currently, the fanotify API does not provide a means for user space > > applications to receive events when a file has been opened specifically > > for execution. New event types FAN_OPEN_EXEC and FAN_OPEN_EXEC_PERM have > > been introduced in order to provide users this capability. > > OK, so these patches look mostly ready (except for a small bits I've > commented on patch 3). OK, great. I can go ahead and perform the necessary updates. These are minor though, so I'm not sure whether it's appropriate to actually send through and entire new patch series that include these changes? To be fair I'm not entirely sure how you're meant to really submit through these minor updates based on previous reviews... > How about the LTP test to actually test them? Once that exists, I can > test the patches and merge them into my tree... Yes, I'm working on them at the moment. I've got some time coming up this weekend, so I hope to have them ready for you by then. It's a little fiddly when it comes to incorporating the exec events into previous tests. The way they're currently written doesn't really allow for them to be somewhat extensible in my opinion. I've written a new test in a completely separate test file, which is easy enough; however I think that these new event types should most definitely be part of perviously written tests i.e. fanotify03 for FAN_OPEN_EXEC_PERM. I've discussed this with Amir and he also agrees. -- Matthew Bobrowski