Re: [PATCH] fanotify: introduce unique event identifier

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Sun, Jun 29, 2025 at 8:24 AM Ibrahim Jirdeh <ibrahimjirdeh@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > > > Do we prefer to scope this change to adding (s32) response id and not add new
> > > > event id field yet.
> > > >
> > > > > Thinking out loud, if we use idr to allocate an event id, as Jan suggested,
> > > > > and we do want to allow it along side event->fd,
> > > > > then we could also overload event->pid, i.e. the meaning of
> > > > > FAN_ERPORT_EVENT_ID would be "event->pid is an event id",
> > > > > Similarly to the way that we overloaded event->pid with FAN_REPORT_TID.
> > > > > Users that need both event id and pid can use FAN_REPORT_PIDFD.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > At least for our usecase, having event->fd along with response id available
> > > > would be helpful as we do not use fid mode mentioned above.
> > >
> > > You cannot use the fid mode mentioned above because it is not yet
> > > supported with pre-content events :)
> > >
> > > My argument goes like this:
> > > 1. We are planning to add fid support for pre-content events for other
> > >     reasons anyway (pre-dir-content events)
> > > 2. For this mode, event->fd will (probably) not be reported anyway,
> > >     so for this mode, we will have to use a different response id
> > > 3. Since event->fd will not be used, it would make a lot of sense and
> > >     very natural to reuse the field for a response id
> > >
> > > So if we accept the limitation that writing an advanced hsm service
> > > that supports non-interrupted restart requires that service to use the
> > > new fid mode, we hit two birds with one event field ;)
> > >
> > > If we take into account that (the way I see it) an advanced hsm service
> > > will need to also support pre-dir-content events, then the argument makes
> > > even more sense.
> > >
>
> Ah I see this makes sense. And as long as we are still able to open files via
> open_handle as the tests you shared below show, then at least for our case I
> don't see issue with switching to the new FAN_CLASS_PRE_CONTENT | FAN_REPORT_FID
> mode.
>
> > > The fact that for your current use cases, you are ok with populating the
> > > entire directory tree in a non-lazy way, does not mean that the use case
> > > will not change in the future to require a lazy population of directory trees.
> > >
> > > I have another "hidden motive" with the nudge trying to push you over
> > > towards pre-content events in fid mode:
> > >
> > > Allowing pre-content events together with legacy events in the same
> > > mark/group brings up some ugly semantic issues that we did not
> > > see when we added the API.
> > >
> > > The flag combination FAN_CLASS_PRE_CONTENT | FAN_REPORT_FID
> > > was never supported, so when we support it, we can start fresh with new rules
> > > like "only pre-content events are allowed in this group" and that simplifies
> > > some of the API questions.
> > >
> > > While I have your attention I wanted to ask, as possibly the only
> > > current user of pre-content events, is any of the Meta use cases
> > > setting any other events in the mask along with pre-content events?
> > >
>
> Regarding Meta usages of pre-content events as far as I am aware we are the
> only ones, and we don't set other events in the mask, only pre-content. I can
> confirm there are no other use cases relying on this and follow up here.
>
> > > *if* we agree to this course I can post a patch to add support for
> > > FAN_CLASS_PRE_CONTENT | FAN_REPORT_FID, temporarily
> > > leaving event->fd in use, so that you can later replace it with
> > > a response id.
> > >
> >
>
> Sounds great. If we do go that route, being able to overload event-fd for now
> will definitely make this patch much simpler.
>

I may have mentioned this before, but I'll bring it up again.
If we want to overload event->fd with response id I would consider
allocating response_id with idr_alloc_cyclic() that starts at 256
and then set event->fd = -response_id.
We want to skip the range -1..-255 because it is used to report
fd open errors with FAN_REPORT_FD_ERROR.

Beyond a clear distinction of type by the value of the field, this will
avert bugs where programers leave old code to close(event->fd)
(or LLM coding agent grabs it from man page).

Thanks,
Amir.





[Index of Archives]     [Linux Ext4 Filesystem]     [Union Filesystem]     [Filesystem Testing]     [Ceph Users]     [Ecryptfs]     [NTFS 3]     [AutoFS]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux Cachefs]     [Reiser Filesystem]     [Linux RAID]     [NTFS 3]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]     [CEPH Development]

  Powered by Linux