lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <87bobg8sj2.fsf@openvz.org> Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 15:14:25 +0400 From: Dmitry Monakhov <dmonakhov@...nvz.org> To: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com> Cc: xfs@....sgi.com, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, dchinner@...hat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfstests: add disk failure simulation test On Thu, 14 Feb 2013 09:15:46 -0600, Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com> wrote: > On 2/14/13 7:52 AM, Dmitry Monakhov wrote: > > On Wed, 13 Feb 2013 10:28:35 -0600, Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com> wrote: > >> On 2/13/13 9:41 AM, Dmitry Monakhov wrote: > > <snip> > > >>> +# get standard environment, filters and checks > >>> +. ./common.rc > >>> +. ./common.filter > >>> + > >>> +# TODO move it to common.blkdev if necessery > >> > >> maybe a comment as to why you do this? (presumably to find the right thing in /sys) > >> I hope this always works with all udev schemes etc? > > I just ment to say that functions below are good candidates to became > > common wrappers. > > Sure, but what is the reason for the wrapper? > > On inspection I think its' because you need the right sysfs name; it'd > just be nice to say that it's the reason for the readlink/basename > frobbing of the existing $SCRATCH_DEV. Not a huge deal. Most people use LVM's names similar to /dev/vg/log1, but real name is /dev/md-xxx, also some fancy SCSI targets may has crazy names. > > >>> +SCRATCH_REAL_DEV=`readlink -f $SCRATCH_DEV` > >>> +SCRATCH_BDEV=`basename $SCRATCH_REAL_DEV` > >>> + > > <snip> > > >>> +_require_debugfs() > >>> +{ > >>> + #boot_params always present in debugfs > >>> + [ -d "$DEBUGFS_MNT/boot_params" ] || _notrun "Debugfs not mounted" > >>> +} > >> > >> Would it make more sense to look for debugfs in /proc/filesystems > >> as a test for it being *available* (as opposed to mounted somewhere?) > >> > >> I wonder if a helper (maybe in _require_debugfs) should work out if > >> it's mounted, if not, try to mount it, and in the end, export DEBUGFS_MNT > >> for any test that wants to use it. > >> > >> Otherwise if it happens to be mounted elsewhere, this'll all fail. > >> Just a thought. Maybe that's unusual enough that there's no point. > >> But getting it mounted if it's not would be helpful I think. > > Any thoughts on this? As it stands it requires debugfs to be > at /sys/kernel/debug (by default) *and* mounted prior to the test run. > So it's another (maybe unexpected) piece of pre-test setup which might > result in this test not getting run. I just try to preserve blktrace(8) behaviour which complain if debugfs is absent. IMHO debugfs is MUST_HAVE feature for testing environment. So if not mounted it was done with purpose. > > -Eric > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists