[LTP] [PATCH 1/1] fanotify: Handle EOPNOTSUPP as TCONF

[Amir Goldstein]

On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 6:01 PM Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> wrote:
>
> On Wed 24-01-24 13:21:30, Petr Vorel wrote:
> > Found on kernel 6.7 (Tumbleweed) on exfat:
> >
> > tst_test.c:1669: TINFO: === Testing on exfat ===
> > tst_test.c:1117: TINFO: Formatting /dev/loop1 with exfat opts='' extra opts=''
> > tst_test.c:1131: TINFO: Mounting /dev/loop1 to /tmp/LTP_fanoL9KLE/mntpoint fstyp=exfat flags=0
> > fanotify14.c:246: TINFO: Test case 0: fanotify_init(FAN_CLASS_CONTENT | FAN_REPORT_FID, O_RDONLY)
> > fanotify14.c:260: TPASS: fanotify_init(tc->init.flags, O_RDONLY) : EINVAL (22)
> > fanotify14.c:246: TINFO: Test case 1: fanotify_init(FAN_CLASS_PRE_CONTENT | FAN_REPORT_FID, O_RDONLY)
> > fanotify14.c:260: TPASS: fanotify_init(tc->init.flags, O_RDONLY) : EINVAL (22)
> > fanotify14.c:246: TINFO: Test case 2: fanotify_init(FAN_CLASS_NOTIF, O_RDONLY)
> > fanotify14.c:263: TPASS: fanotify_init(tc->init.flags, O_RDONLY) returned fd 5
> > fanotify14.c:283: TINFO: Testing FAN_MARK_INODE with INODE_EVENTS
> > fanotify14.c:285: TPASS: fanotify_mark(fanotify_fd, 0x00000001 | tc->mark.flags, tc->mask.flags, dirfd, path) : EINVAL (22)
> > fanotify14.c:246: TINFO: Test case 3: fanotify_init(FAN_CLASS_NOTIF | FAN_REPORT_FID, O_RDONLY)
> > fanotify14.c:263: TPASS: fanotify_init(tc->init.flags, O_RDONLY) returned fd 5
> > fanotify14.c:283: TINFO: Testing FAN_MARK_MOUNT with INODE_EVENTS
> > fanotify14.c:285: TPASS: fanotify_mark(fanotify_fd, 0x00000001 | tc->mark.flags, tc->mask.flags, dirfd, path) : EINVAL (22)
> > fanotify14.c:246: TINFO: Test case 4: fanotify_init(FAN_CLASS_NOTIF | FAN_REPORT_NAME, O_RDONLY)
> > fanotify14.c:260: TPASS: fanotify_init(tc->init.flags, O_RDONLY) : EINVAL (22)
> > fanotify14.c:246: TINFO: Test case 5: fanotify_init(FAN_CLASS_NOTIF | FAN_REPORT_FID | FAN_REPORT_NAME, O_RDONLY)
> > fanotify14.c:260: TPASS: fanotify_init(tc->init.flags, O_RDONLY) : EINVAL (22)
> > fanotify14.c:246: TINFO: Test case 6: fanotify_init(FAN_CLASS_NOTIF | FAN_REPORT_TARGET_FID | FAN_REPORT_DFID_NAME, O_RDONLY)
> > fanotify14.c:260: TPASS: fanotify_init(tc->init.flags, O_RDONLY) : EINVAL (22)
> > fanotify14.c:246: TINFO: Test case 7: fanotify_init(FAN_CLASS_NOTIF | FAN_REPORT_TARGET_FID | FAN_REPORT_DFID_FID, O_RDONLY)
> > fanotify14.c:260: TPASS: fanotify_init(tc->init.flags, O_RDONLY) : EINVAL (22)
> > fanotify14.c:246: TINFO: Test case 8: fanotify_init(FAN_CLASS_NOTIF | FAN_REPORT_DFID_FID, O_RDONLY)
> > fanotify14.c:263: TPASS: fanotify_init(tc->init.flags, O_RDONLY) returned fd 5
> > fanotify14.c:283: TINFO: Testing FAN_MARK_INODE with FAN_RENAME
> > fanotify14.c:285: TPASS: fanotify_mark(fanotify_fd, 0x00000001 | tc->mark.flags, tc->mask.flags, dirfd, path) : EINVAL (22)
> > fanotify14.c:246: TINFO: Test case 9: fanotify_init(FAN_CLASS_NOTIF, O_RDONLY)
> > fanotify14.c:263: TPASS: fanotify_init(tc->init.flags, O_RDONLY) returned fd 5
> > fanotify14.c:283: TINFO: Testing FAN_MARK_ONLYDIR with FAN_OPEN
> > fanotify14.c:285: TPASS: fanotify_mark(fanotify_fd, 0x00000001 | tc->mark.flags, tc->mask.flags, dirfd, path) : ENOTDIR (20)
> > fanotify14.c:298: TPASS: Adding an inode mark on directory did not fail with ENOTDIR error as on non-dir inode
> > fanotify14.c:246: TINFO: Test case 10: fanotify_init(FAN_CLASS_NOTIF | FAN_REPORT_DFID_NAME_TARGET, O_RDONLY)
> > fanotify14.c:263: TPASS: fanotify_init(tc->init.flags, O_RDONLY) returned fd 5
> > fanotify14.c:283: TINFO: Testing FAN_MARK_INODE with FAN_DELETE
> > fanotify14.c:285: TPASS: fanotify_mark(fanotify_fd, 0x00000001 | tc->mark.flags, tc->mask.flags, dirfd, path) : ENOTDIR (20)
> > fanotify14.c:298: TPASS: Adding an inode mark on directory did not fail with ENOTDIR error as on non-dir inode
> > fanotify14.c:303: TBROK: fanotify_mark(5, 0x101, 0x200, ..., mntpoint/file1) unsupported: EOPNOTSUPP (95)
> >
> > Reported-by: Dominique Leuenberger <dleuenberger@suse.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz>
>
> Thanks for looking into this. So EOPNOTSUPP is expected with a
> FAN_MARK_FILESYSTEM because exfat does not have export operations and thus
> cannot decode file handles (which is needed for sensible use of filesystem
> marks).
>
> I think we should just ignore this failure in the test. Amir?

No. I already have sent patches to skip filesystem/mount marks
for those filesystems.

Thanks,
Amir.