Re: [LTP] fanotify20: Allow FAN_REPORT_PIDFD with FAN_REPORT_TID on v7.2+

[linuxtestproject.agent@gmail.com]

Hi AnonymeMeow,

On 2026-06-16, AnonymeMeow wrote:
> fanotify20: Allow FAN_REPORT_PIDFD with FAN_REPORT_TID on v7.2+

--- [PATCH 1/5] ---

> fanotify20: Allow FAN_REPORT_PIDFD with FAN_REPORT_TID on v7.2+

> + * FAN_REPORT_PIDFD combined with FAN_REPORT_TID is supported since v7.2-rc1.

The latest stable kernel release is v7.1, so v7.2 has not been
released yet. Per LTP convention, tests for features not yet in a
mainline kernel release need the [STAGING] subject prefix.

Since the patch adjusts test expectations for the unreleased v7.2
feature, the subject should be prefixed with [STAGING].

--- [PATCH 4/5] ---

> fanotify21: Add test variants for FAN_REPORT_TID

Same staging concern here. The new test variants exercise
FAN_REPORT_PIDFD combined with FAN_REPORT_TID, which is a v7.2-rc1
feature. This commit should also carry the [STAGING] prefix until
v7.2 is released.

--- [PATCH 5/5] ---

> fanotify21: Add FAN_REPORT_TID pidfd coverage

Same as above: the thread-based pidfd verification is for the
unreleased v7.2 FAN_REPORT_TID support and needs [STAGING].

Verdict - Needs revision

Pre-existing issues (not introduced by this series):

- fanotify20.c: `static int fd;` is not initialized to -1, and the
  validity checks use `if (fd > 0)` instead of `if (fd != -1)`.

- fanotify21.c: `static int fanotify_fd;` is not initialized to -1,
  and the cleanup check uses `if (fanotify_fd >= 0)` instead of
  `if (fanotify_fd != -1)`.

---
Note:

The agent can sometimes produce false positives although often its
findings are genuine. If you find issues with the review, please
comment this email or ignore the suggestions.

Regards,
LTP AI Reviewer

-- 
Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp