Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20210426184201.4177978-1-krisman@collabora.com> <20210426184201.4177978-11-krisman@collabora.com>
In-Reply-To: <20210426184201.4177978-11-krisman@collabora.com>
From:   Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 27 Apr 2021 10:11:12 +0300
Message-ID: <CAOQ4uxh_AQCj2XJgVzFp862xhr70FAS6n3QjeeQSd_bizw3Ssw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 10/15] fanotify: Introduce code location record
To:     Gabriel Krisman Bertazi <krisman@collabora.com>
Cc:     Theodore Tso <tytso@mit.edu>,
        "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@kernel.org>,
        Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.com>,
        David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
        Khazhismel Kumykov <khazhy@google.com>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Ext4 <linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org>, kernel@collabora.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 9:43 PM Gabriel Krisman Bertazi
<krisman@collabora.com> wrote:
>
> This patch introduces an optional info record that describes the
> source (as in the region of the source-code where an event was
> initiated).  This record is not produced for other type of existing
> notification, but it is optionally enabled for FAN_ERROR notifications.
>

I find this functionality controversial, because think that the fs provided
s_last_error*, s_first_error* is more reliable and more powerful than this
functionality.

Let's leave it for a future extending proposal, should fanotify event reporting
proposal pass muster, shall we?
Or do you think that without this optional extension fanotify event reporting
will not be valuable enough?

Thanks,
Amir.