[LTP] [PATCH] fanotify: prepare tests for thread pidfd reporting
Amir Goldstein
amir73il@gmail.com
Wed May 27 21:54:16 CEST 2026
On Wed, May 27, 2026 at 8:41 AM AnonymeMeow <anonymemeow@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 2026-05-25 12:04:32+02:00, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> > On Sun, May 24, 2026 at 12:25 PM AnonymeMeow <anonymemeow@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > The FAN_REPORT_PIDFD and FAN_REPORT_TID flags used to be mutually
> > > exclusive because by the time the pidfd support was introduced to
> > > fanotify, pidfds could only be created for thread group leaders. Now
> > > that the pidfd API supports thread-specific pidfds via PIDFD_THREAD,
> > > this restriction can be lifted.
> > >
> > > This patch allows listeners using FAN_REPORT_PIDFD | FAN_REPORT_TID
> > > to receive the pidfd referring to the thread that triggered the
> > > event.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: AnonymeMeow <anonymemeow@gmail.com>
> >
> > Regarding the legal standpoint, as far as I can tell, commit d4563201f33a0
> > ("Documentation: simplify and clarify DCO contribution example language")
> > explicitly allowed pseudonyms, so although unorthodox, this seems to be legit.
> >
> > In any case, the contributing itself seems legit to me, so
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com>
> >
> > But before merging this, AnonymeMeow, since it is your first contribution
> > to the Linux kernel (right?) as well as a "I am not a robot" challenge
> > I would like to first see that the tests have been dealt with.
> >
> > The LTP test fanotify20 explicitly checks that this flag combination is not
> > allowed. Need to discuss an acceptable solution with LTP developers -
> > remove this check depending on kernel version or whatever they choose.
> >
> > The LTP test fanotify21 tests the FAN_REPORT_PIDFD functionality.
> > Please add two new variants for REPORT_TID:
> > .test_variants = 4,
> >
> > #define TST_VARIANT_FD_ERROR (tst_variant & 1)
> > #define TST_VARIANT_PIDFD_THREAD (tst_variant & 2)
> >
> > The existing checks if (tst_variant) become if (TST_VARIANT_FD_ERROR)
> > so bit 0 represents the FAN_REPORT_FD_ERROR variation.
> >
> > in do_setup() need to use if (TST_VARIANT_PIDFD_THREAD)
> > to add FAN_REPORT_TID and to use PIDFD_THREAD for pidfd.
> >
> > Follow the footsteps of fd_error_unsupported to skip the
> > TST_VARIANT_PIDFD_THREAD variants on kernels where the flag
> > combination is not supported.
> >
> > Good luck,
> > Amir.
>
> Thanks for the helpful and detailed guidance on how to extend the tests!
> I've updated the test cases according to your suggestions.
[cc Cyril and remove lkml and fsdevel]
The remaining CC is the correct crowd for the LTP patches.
Also please send a patch series with a cover letter (one more new
thing to learn ;))
instead of one big patch.
One patch to fix fanotify20.
Possibly one patch to fix existing problem that Petr reported in fanotify21.
Then several patches for the new test (see below)
>
> After applying my previous patch, the LTP fanotify20 test needs to probe
> whether the running kernel supports thread pidfd reporting. I didn't use
> kernel version check because the LTP documentation notes that kernel
> versions do not always correspond to a well-defined feature set due to
> distribution backports, and recommends runtime feature checks. I probe
> whether fanotify_init() succeeds with FAN_REPORT_PIDFD | FAN_REPORT_TID
> as a workaround. The first test case uses exactly the same flags, but it
> still verifies the return value and errno, so I am not sure whether this
> should be considered duplicate logic. I also added one test case that
> passes all relevant FAN_REPORT_* flags and verifies whether
> fanotify_init() behaves as expected. The expected result depends on the
> previous probe result.
>
> Also, I added one test case and two test variants to LTP test
> fanotify21. The new test case verifies that fanotify reports the correct
> pidfd for the event generated by a child process or a worker thread
> created by the main thread. This is especially useful for the thread
> pidfd test variants, because it checks that the pidfd reported by
> fanotify really refers to the event-generating thread rather than to
> the thread-group leader. The two new test variants extend the existing
> ones by adding the thread pidfd mode, as you suggested.
>
> I ran all fanotify-related LTP tests on both a vanilla Linux 7.1-rc5
> kernel and a Linux 7.1-rc5 kernel with my patch applied. Both kernels
> passed all the tests. They were both built with the config file from the
> official Arch Linux package repo. More specifically, both kernels passed
> all three test cases in fanotify20, with no skips. The test cases expect
> different results from the two kernels, which is the expected behavior.
> For fanotify21, the patched kernel passed all test cases in all test
> variants. On the unpatched kernel, all test cases passed for variants
> without TST_VARIANT_PIDFD_THREAD, while all test cases in variants with
> TST_VARIANT_PIDFD_THREAD were skipped, which is also the expected
> behavior.
Up to here this is cover letter material.
You should probably refer to your kernel patch on lore from the cover letter:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/20260524102439.44642-1-anonymemeow@gmail.com/
>
> Again, thanks for the detailed guidance on this!
>
> With Best Regards,
> AnonymeMeow
>
> Signed-off-by: AnonymeMeow <anonymemeow@gmail.com>
> ---
> testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/Makefile | 2 +-
> .../kernel/syscalls/fanotify/fanotify20.c | 24 +-
> .../kernel/syscalls/fanotify/fanotify21.c | 224 +++++++++++++-----
> 3 files changed, 184 insertions(+), 66 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/Makefile b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/Makefile
> index 3628094ba..b20bb50e9 100644
> --- a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/Makefile
> +++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/Makefile
> @@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
> # Copyright (c) Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>, 2013
>
> top_srcdir ?= ../../../..
> -fanotify11: CFLAGS+=-pthread
> +fanotify11 fanotify21: CFLAGS+=-pthread
> include $(top_srcdir)/include/mk/testcases.mk
>
> include $(top_srcdir)/include/mk/generic_leaf_target.mk
> diff --git a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/fanotify20.c b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/fanotify20.c
> index b32ecf6aa..5d77b485c 100644
> --- a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/fanotify20.c
> +++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/fanotify20.c
> @@ -28,19 +28,27 @@
> #define FLAGS_DESC(x) .flags = x, .desc = #x
>
> static int fd;
> +static int thread_pidfd_unsupported;
>
> static struct test_case_t {
> unsigned int flags;
> char *desc;
> int exp_errno;
> + unsigned int needs_thread_pidfd;
> } test_cases[] = {
> {
> FLAGS_DESC(FAN_REPORT_PIDFD | FAN_REPORT_TID),
> .exp_errno = EINVAL,
> + .needs_thread_pidfd = 1,
> },
Unless LTP developers think otherwise, I would just remove this test case.
> {
> FLAGS_DESC(FAN_REPORT_PIDFD | FAN_REPORT_FID | FAN_REPORT_DFID_NAME),
> },
> + {
> + FLAGS_DESC(FAN_REPORT_PIDFD | FAN_REPORT_TID | FAN_REPORT_FID | FAN_REPORT_DFID_NAME),
> + .exp_errno = EINVAL,
> + .needs_thread_pidfd = 1,
> + },
TBH I do not see much value in adding this test case.
> };
>
> static void do_setup(void)
> @@ -51,17 +59,29 @@ static void do_setup(void)
> */
> REQUIRE_FANOTIFY_INIT_FLAGS_SUPPORTED_ON_FS(FAN_REPORT_PIDFD,
> MOUNT_PATH);
> +
> + /*
> + * Check whether the kernel supports FAN_REPORT_PIDFD in combination
> + * with FAN_REPORT_TID. Test cases with the needs_thread_pidfd field
> + * set expect different errno values depending on whether this
> + * combination is supported.
> + */
> + thread_pidfd_unsupported = fanotify_init_flags_supported_on_fs(
> + FAN_REPORT_PIDFD | FAN_REPORT_TID, MOUNT_PATH);
> }
>
This makes no sense to me.
What's the point is a test that checks the flag combination
FAN_REPORT_PIDFD | FAN_REPORT_TID
and if it succeeds/fails, tests it again and verifies the same result
(well it validates the errno EINVAL)
Not much value for a test IMO.
I don't know.
For all I care (if others do not object) you can repurpose the test
fanotify20 from a test which is expected to fail with the flag combination
FAN_REPORT_PIDFD | FAN_REPORT_TID to a test which verifies that
the combination works as expected.
Let's see what the others think.
> static void do_test(unsigned int i)
> {
> struct test_case_t *tc = &test_cases[i];
>
> - tst_res(TINFO, "Test %s on %s", tc->exp_errno ? "fail" : "pass",
> + int exp_errno = tc->needs_thread_pidfd && !thread_pidfd_unsupported ?
> + 0 : tc->exp_errno;
> +
> + tst_res(TINFO, "Test %s on %s", exp_errno ? "fail" : "pass",
> tc->desc);
>
> TST_EXP_FD_OR_FAIL(fd = fanotify_init(tc->flags, O_RDONLY),
> - tc->exp_errno);
> + exp_errno);
>
> if (fd > 0)
> SAFE_CLOSE(fd);
> diff --git a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/fanotify21.c b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/fanotify21.c
> index 340fb0018..4629860da 100644
> --- a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/fanotify21.c
> +++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/fanotify21.c
> @@ -20,9 +20,11 @@
> #include <stdlib.h>
> #include <string.h>
> #include <sys/mount.h>
> +#include <pthread.h>
> #include "tst_test.h"
> #include "tst_safe_stdio.h"
> #include "tst_safe_macros.h"
> +#include "tst_safe_pthread.h"
> #include "lapi/pidfd.h"
>
> #ifdef HAVE_SYS_FANOTIFY_H
> @@ -42,7 +44,7 @@ struct pidfd_fdinfo_t {
>
> static struct test_case_t {
> char *name;
> - int fork;
> + int trigger_in_child;
> int want_pidfd_err;
> int remount_ro;
> } test_cases[] = {
> @@ -52,6 +54,12 @@ static struct test_case_t {
> 0,
> 0,
> },
> + {
> + "return a valid pidfd for event created by child",
> + 1,
> + 0,
> + 0,
> + },
> {
> "return invalid pidfd for event created by terminated child",
> 1,
> @@ -68,16 +76,17 @@ static struct test_case_t {
>
> static int fanotify_fd;
> static char event_buf[BUF_SZ];
> -static struct pidfd_fdinfo_t *self_pidfd_fdinfo;
> +static struct pidfd_fdinfo_t expected_pidfd_fdinfo;
>
> static int fd_error_unsupported;
> +static int thread_pidfd_unsupported;
> +
> +#define TST_VARIANT_FD_ERROR (tst_variant & 1)
> +#define TST_VARIANT_PIDFD_THREAD (tst_variant & 2)
>
> -static struct pidfd_fdinfo_t *read_pidfd_fdinfo(int pidfd)
> +static void read_pidfd_fdinfo(int pidfd, struct pidfd_fdinfo_t *pidfd_fdinfo)
> {
> char *fdinfo_path;
> - struct pidfd_fdinfo_t *pidfd_fdinfo;
> -
> - pidfd_fdinfo = SAFE_MALLOC(sizeof(struct pidfd_fdinfo_t));
>
> SAFE_ASPRINTF(&fdinfo_path, "/proc/self/fdinfo/%d", pidfd);
> SAFE_FILE_LINES_SCANF(fdinfo_path, "pos: %d", &pidfd_fdinfo->pos);
> @@ -87,8 +96,6 @@ static struct pidfd_fdinfo_t *read_pidfd_fdinfo(int pidfd)
> SAFE_FILE_LINES_SCANF(fdinfo_path, "NSpid: %d", &pidfd_fdinfo->ns_pid);
>
> free(fdinfo_path);
> -
> - return pidfd_fdinfo;
> }
>
> static void generate_event(void)
> @@ -100,30 +107,91 @@ static void generate_event(void)
> SAFE_CLOSE(fd);
> }
>
> -static void do_fork(void)
> +static pid_t do_fork(int want_pidfd_err)
> {
> - int status;
> + int pidfd;
> pid_t child;
>
> child = SAFE_FORK();
> if (child == 0) {
> SAFE_CLOSE(fanotify_fd);
> generate_event();
> + TST_CHECKPOINT_WAIT(0);
> exit(EXIT_SUCCESS);
> }
>
> - SAFE_WAITPID(child, &status, 0);
> - if (WIFEXITED(status) && WEXITSTATUS(status) != 0)
> - tst_brk(TBROK,
> - "child process terminated incorrectly");
> + pidfd = SAFE_PIDFD_OPEN(child, 0);
> + read_pidfd_fdinfo(pidfd, &expected_pidfd_fdinfo);
> + SAFE_CLOSE(pidfd);
> +
> + if (want_pidfd_err) {
> + int status;
> + TST_CHECKPOINT_WAKE(0);
> + SAFE_WAITPID(child, &status, 0);
> + if (WIFEXITED(status) && WEXITSTATUS(status) != 0)
> + tst_brk(TBROK, "child process terminated incorrectly");
> +
> + return -1;
> + }
> +
> + return child;
> }
>
> -static void do_setup(void)
> +static void *thread_generate_event(void *arg)
> +{
> + *(int *)arg = SAFE_PIDFD_OPEN(gettid(), PIDFD_THREAD);
> + TST_CHECKPOINT_WAKE(0);
> +
> + generate_event();
> + TST_CHECKPOINT_WAIT(0);
> + pthread_exit(0);
> +}
> +
> +static pthread_t do_pthread_create(int want_pidfd_err)
> {
> int pidfd;
> + pthread_t worker;
> +
> + SAFE_PTHREAD_CREATE(&worker, NULL, thread_generate_event, &pidfd);
> +
> + TST_CHECKPOINT_WAIT(0);
> + read_pidfd_fdinfo(pidfd, &expected_pidfd_fdinfo);
> +
> + if (want_pidfd_err) {
> + int status;
> + struct pidfd_fdinfo_t thread_pidfd_fdinfo;
> + TST_CHECKPOINT_WAKE(0);
> + SAFE_PTHREAD_JOIN(worker, (void **)&status);
> + if (status != 0)
> + tst_brk(TBROK, "worker thread terminated incorrectly");
> +
> + /*
> + * Unlike waitpid(), pthread_join() only waits until the worker thread
> + * has exited from the pthread point of view. The thread may still be
> + * visible through its pidfd for a short time afterwards, and fanotify
> + * creates the event pidfd when the event is read. Wait until the
> + * worker pidfd fdinfo reports Pid: -1 before reading the event so
> + * that fanotify reports ESRCH/FAN_NOPIDFD instead of a pidfd.
> + */
> + do {
> + read_pidfd_fdinfo(pidfd, &thread_pidfd_fdinfo);
> + } while (thread_pidfd_fdinfo.pid != -1);
> +
> + SAFE_CLOSE(pidfd);
> +
> + return -1;
> + }
> +
> + SAFE_CLOSE(pidfd);
> +
> + return worker;
> +}
> +
> +static void do_setup(void)
> +{
> int init_flags = FAN_REPORT_PIDFD;
>
> - if (tst_variant) {
> + if (TST_VARIANT_FD_ERROR) {
> fanotify_fd = -1;
> fd_error_unsupported = fanotify_init_flags_supported_on_fs(FAN_REPORT_FD_ERROR, ".");
> if (fd_error_unsupported)
> @@ -131,6 +199,15 @@ static void do_setup(void)
> init_flags |= FAN_REPORT_FD_ERROR;
> }
>
> + if (TST_VARIANT_PIDFD_THREAD) {
> + fanotify_fd = -1;
> + thread_pidfd_unsupported = fanotify_init_flags_supported_on_fs(
> + FAN_REPORT_PIDFD | FAN_REPORT_TID, ".");
> + if (thread_pidfd_unsupported)
> + return;
> + init_flags |= FAN_REPORT_TID;
> + }
> +
> SAFE_TOUCH(TEST_FILE, 0666, NULL);
>
> /*
> @@ -144,15 +221,6 @@ static void do_setup(void)
> fanotify_fd = SAFE_FANOTIFY_INIT(init_flags, O_RDWR);
> SAFE_FANOTIFY_MARK(fanotify_fd, FAN_MARK_ADD, FAN_OPEN, AT_FDCWD,
> TEST_FILE);
> -
> - pidfd = SAFE_PIDFD_OPEN(getpid(), 0);
> -
> - self_pidfd_fdinfo = read_pidfd_fdinfo(pidfd);
> - if (self_pidfd_fdinfo == NULL) {
> - tst_brk(TBROK,
> - "pidfd=%d, failed to read pidfd fdinfo",
> - pidfd);
> - }
> }
>
> static void do_test(unsigned int num)
> @@ -160,17 +228,29 @@ static void do_test(unsigned int num)
> int i = 0, len;
> struct test_case_t *tc = &test_cases[num];
> int nopidfd_err = tc->want_pidfd_err ?
> - (tst_variant ? -ESRCH : FAN_NOPIDFD) : 0;
> - int fd_err = (tc->remount_ro && tst_variant) ? -EROFS : 0;
> + (TST_VARIANT_FD_ERROR ? -ESRCH : FAN_NOPIDFD) : 0;
> + int fd_err = (tc->remount_ro && TST_VARIANT_FD_ERROR) ? -EROFS : 0;
> + union {
> + pid_t pid;
> + pthread_t pthread_id;
> + } worker_id;
>
> tst_res(TINFO, "Test #%d.%d: %s %s", num, tst_variant, tc->name,
> - tst_variant ? "(FAN_REPORT_FD_ERROR)" : "");
> + TST_VARIANT_FD_ERROR ? (TST_VARIANT_PIDFD_THREAD ?
> + "(FAN_REPORT_FD_ERROR, FAN_REPORT_TID)" : "(FAN_REPORT_FD_ERROR)") :
> + (TST_VARIANT_PIDFD_THREAD ? "(FAN_REPORT_TID)" : ""));
>
> - if (fd_error_unsupported && tst_variant) {
> + if (fd_error_unsupported && TST_VARIANT_FD_ERROR) {
> FANOTIFY_INIT_FLAGS_ERR_MSG(FAN_REPORT_FD_ERROR, fd_error_unsupported);
> return;
> }
>
> + if (thread_pidfd_unsupported && TST_VARIANT_PIDFD_THREAD) {
> + FANOTIFY_INIT_FLAGS_ERR_MSG(FAN_REPORT_PIDFD | FAN_REPORT_TID,
> + thread_pidfd_unsupported);
> + return;
> + }
> +
> if (tc->remount_ro) {
> /* SAFE_MOUNT fails to remount FUSE */
> if (mount(tst_device->dev, MOUNT_PATH, tst_device->fs_type,
> @@ -182,14 +262,30 @@ static void do_test(unsigned int num)
> }
>
> /*
> - * Generate the event in either self or a child process. Event
> - * generation in a child process is done so that the FAN_NOPIDFD case
> - * can be verified.
> + * Generate the event either in the current task or in another task.
> + * When trigger_in_child is set, the event can be generated by either
> + * a child process or a worker thread depending on the test variant.
> + * The want_pidfd_err field determines whether the event-generating
> + * task is still valid when the event is read.
> */
> - if (tc->fork)
> - do_fork();
> - else
> + if (tc->trigger_in_child) {
> + if (TST_VARIANT_PIDFD_THREAD)
> + worker_id.pthread_id = do_pthread_create(tc->want_pidfd_err);
> + else
> + worker_id.pid = do_fork(tc->want_pidfd_err);
This misses test coverage
We are not testing do_pthread_create() without FAN_REPORT_TID
and we are not testing that do_fork with FAN_REPORT_TID
> + } else {
> + /*
> + * Although the expected pid and the pid reported by fanotify are
> + * the same in this case, pidfds created with and without PIDFD_THREAD
> + * flag have different fdinfo flags. Use PIDFD_THREAD for the expected
> + * pidfd fdinfo so that the fdinfo can be compared bitwise.
> + */
> + int pidfd = SAFE_PIDFD_OPEN(gettid(), TST_VARIANT_PIDFD_THREAD ? PIDFD_THREAD : 0);
> + read_pidfd_fdinfo(pidfd, &expected_pidfd_fdinfo);
> + SAFE_CLOSE(pidfd);
> +
> generate_event();
> + }
>
> /*
> * Read all of the queued events into the provided event
> @@ -208,7 +304,7 @@ static void do_test(unsigned int num)
> while (i < len) {
> struct fanotify_event_metadata *event;
> struct fanotify_event_info_pidfd *info;
> - struct pidfd_fdinfo_t *event_pidfd_fdinfo = NULL;
> + struct pidfd_fdinfo_t event_pidfd_fdinfo;
>
> event = (struct fanotify_event_metadata *)&event_buf[i];
> info = (struct fanotify_event_info_pidfd *)(event + 1);
> @@ -288,39 +384,32 @@ static void do_test(unsigned int num)
> * No pidfd errors occurred, continue with verifying pidfd
> * fdinfo validity.
> */
> - event_pidfd_fdinfo = read_pidfd_fdinfo(info->pidfd);
> - if (event_pidfd_fdinfo == NULL) {
> - tst_brk(TBROK,
> - "reading fdinfo for pidfd: %d "
> - "describing pid: %u failed",
> - info->pidfd,
> - (unsigned int)event->pid);
> - goto next_event;
> - } else if (event_pidfd_fdinfo->pid != event->pid) {
> + read_pidfd_fdinfo(info->pidfd, &event_pidfd_fdinfo);
> + if (event_pidfd_fdinfo.pid != event->pid) {
> tst_res(TFAIL,
> "pidfd provided for incorrect pid "
> "(expected pidfd for pid: %u, got pidfd for "
> "pid: %u)",
> (unsigned int)event->pid,
> - (unsigned int)event_pidfd_fdinfo->pid);
> + (unsigned int)event_pidfd_fdinfo.pid);
> goto next_event;
> - } else if (memcmp(event_pidfd_fdinfo, self_pidfd_fdinfo,
> + } else if (memcmp(&event_pidfd_fdinfo, &expected_pidfd_fdinfo,
> sizeof(struct pidfd_fdinfo_t))) {
> tst_res(TFAIL,
> "pidfd fdinfo values for self and event differ "
> "(expected pos: %d, flags: %x, mnt_id: %d, "
> "pid: %d, ns_pid: %d, got pos: %d, "
> "flags: %x, mnt_id: %d, pid: %d, ns_pid: %d",
> - self_pidfd_fdinfo->pos,
> - self_pidfd_fdinfo->flags,
> - self_pidfd_fdinfo->mnt_id,
> - self_pidfd_fdinfo->pid,
> - self_pidfd_fdinfo->ns_pid,
> - event_pidfd_fdinfo->pos,
> - event_pidfd_fdinfo->flags,
> - event_pidfd_fdinfo->mnt_id,
> - event_pidfd_fdinfo->pid,
> - event_pidfd_fdinfo->ns_pid);
> + expected_pidfd_fdinfo.pos,
> + expected_pidfd_fdinfo.flags,
> + expected_pidfd_fdinfo.mnt_id,
> + expected_pidfd_fdinfo.pid,
> + expected_pidfd_fdinfo.ns_pid,
> + event_pidfd_fdinfo.pos,
> + event_pidfd_fdinfo.flags,
> + event_pidfd_fdinfo.mnt_id,
> + event_pidfd_fdinfo.pid,
> + event_pidfd_fdinfo.ns_pid);
> goto next_event;
> } else {
> tst_res(TPASS,
> @@ -342,9 +431,20 @@ next_event:
>
> if (info && info->pidfd >= 0)
> SAFE_CLOSE(info->pidfd);
> + }
>
> - if (event_pidfd_fdinfo)
> - free(event_pidfd_fdinfo);
> + if (tc->trigger_in_child && !tc->want_pidfd_err) {
> + int status;
> + TST_CHECKPOINT_WAKE(0);
> + if (TST_VARIANT_PIDFD_THREAD) {
> + SAFE_PTHREAD_JOIN(worker_id.pthread_id, (void **)&status);
> + if (status != 0)
> + tst_brk(TBROK, "worker thread terminated incorrectly");
> + } else {
> + SAFE_WAITPID(worker_id.pid, &status, 0);
> + if (WIFEXITED(status) && WEXITSTATUS(status) != 0)
> + tst_brk(TBROK, "child process terminated incorrectly");
> + }
> }
> }
>
> @@ -352,19 +452,17 @@ static void do_cleanup(void)
> {
> if (fanotify_fd >= 0)
> SAFE_CLOSE(fanotify_fd);
> -
> - if (self_pidfd_fdinfo)
> - free(self_pidfd_fdinfo);
> }
>
> static struct tst_test test = {
> .setup = do_setup,
> .test = do_test,
> .tcnt = ARRAY_SIZE(test_cases),
> - .test_variants = 2,
> + .test_variants = 4,
> .cleanup = do_cleanup,
> .all_filesystems = 1,
> .needs_root = 1,
> + .needs_checkpoints = 1,
> .mount_device = 1,
> .mntpoint = MOUNT_PATH,
> .forks_child = 1,
> --
> 2.54.0
>
This patch is very large and hard to review.
One option is to start with prep patches (like return event_pidfd_fdinfo
by value use help vars etc) and keep the new test variants patch as small
as possible.
But TBH I think I gave you bad advice.
The idea of test_variants is that the MOST of the code is the same
but it looks like 90% of the code if branched by this variant.
In this case, forking the test itself (to fanotify20 or another number)
is a better idea.
fanotify21 is testing FAN_REPORT_PIDFD with/without fork.
It still needs the 2 new TST_VARIANT_PIDFD_THREAD variants,
with FAN_REPORT_TID, but not with pthread_create.
The new test (say fanotify20) only needs to test FAN_REPORT_PIDFD
with pthread_create (which is most of the new code) and it also needs
the TST_VARIANT_PIDFD_THREAD variants, but in this case the
expected reported pidfd would be different between the variants.
Thanks,
Amir.
More information about the ltp
mailing list