[LTP] [PATCH] syscalls/fanotify03: skip events from other pids when testing MOUNT|FILESYSTEM

[Jan Stancek <jstancek@redhat.com>]

----- Original Message -----
> On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 12:16 AM Jan Stancek <jstancek@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > FAN_MARK_MOUNT and FAN_MARK_FILESYSTEM sets up monitoring that can
> > cover entire root "/". So a random background process can interfere
> > with test.
> >
> > For example run test while running following on another terminal
> > to reproduce:
> >   while [ True ]; do ls -la /root > /dev/null; done
> >
> > Test fails and hangs until timeout:
> >   tst_test.c:1085: INFO: Timeout per run is 0h 05m 00s
> >   fanotify03.c:168: INFO: Test #0: inode mark permission events
> >   fanotify03.c:236: PASS: got event: mask=10000 pid=7317 fd=7
> >   fanotify03.c:236: PASS: got event: mask=20000 pid=7317 fd=7
> >   fanotify03.c:136: PASS: child exited correctly
> >   fanotify03.c:168: INFO: Test #1: mount mark permission events
> >   fanotify03.c:236: PASS: got event: mask=10000 pid=7318 fd=7
> >   fanotify03.c:231: FAIL: got event: mask=20000 pid=7306 (expected 7318)
> >   fd=7
> >   fanotify03.c:223: FAIL: got event: mask=20000 (expected 0) pid=7318 fd=7
> >   Test timeouted, sending SIGKILL!
> >   tst_test.c:1125: INFO: If you are running on slow machine, try exporting
> >   LTP_TIMEOUT_MUL > 1
> >   tst_test.c:1126: BROK: Test killed! (timeout?)
> >
> > Skip events that are not from our child when testing FAN_MARK_MOUNT and
> > FAN_MARK_FILESYSTEM. If these are permission events, allow everything.
> >
> 
> That's the wrong way to fix the problem.

Can you elaborate? The test still fails if we don't get event
from our child.

> 
> Please use .mount_device = 1 to contain the effects of
> FAN_MARK_FILESYSTEM/FAN_MARK_MOUNT to events on the
> test device.

I recall (from long time ago) that we saw some daemons that
could probe new mount points, like gvsfd. 

> 
> While at it, I see that fanotify05 also sets a FAN_MARK_MOUNT
> without having a private test mount.
> Can fix this by either .mount_device = 1 or using the bind mount
> approach taken by fanotify06.

I see fanotify01 failing as well.

> 
> I am assuming you will take care of this.
> If you need me to get involved with the fix let me know.
> 
> Thanks,
> Amir.
>