Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:2 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:2;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20230918123217.932179-1-max.kellermann@ionos.com>
 <20230918123217.932179-3-max.kellermann@ionos.com> <20230918124050.hzbgpci42illkcec@quack3>
In-Reply-To: <20230918124050.hzbgpci42illkcec@quack3>
From:   Max Kellermann <max.kellermann@ionos.com>
Date:   Mon, 18 Sep 2023 15:57:43 +0200
Message-ID: <CAKPOu+-Nx_cvBZNox63R1ah76wQp6eH4RLah0O5mDaLo9h60ww@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] inotify_user: add system call inotify_add_watch_at()
To:     Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Cc:     linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        amir73il@gmail.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Sep 18, 2023 at 2:40=E2=80=AFPM Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> wrote:
> Note that since kernel 5.13 you
> don't need CAP_SYS_ADMIN capability for fanotify functionality that is
> more-or-less equivalent to what inotify provides.

Oh, I missed that change - I remember fanotify as being inaccessible
for unprivileged processes, and fanotify being designed for things
like virus scanners. Indeed I should migrate my code to fanotify.

If fanotify has now become the designated successor of inotify, that
should be hinted in the inotify manpage, and if inotify is effectively
feature-frozen, maybe that should be an extra status in the
MAINTAINERS file?

Max