linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH 10/10] xfstests: add disk failure simulation test

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <87621ah8q4.fsf@openvz.org>
Date:	Sat, 02 Mar 2013 05:49:07 +0400
From:	Dmitry Monakhov <dmonakhov@...nvz.org>
To:	Rich Johnston <rjohnston@....com>
Cc:	xfs@....sgi.com, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, dchinner@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/10] xfstests: add disk failure simulation test

On Fri, 1 Mar 2013 14:11:15 -0600, Rich Johnston <rjohnston@....com> wrote:
> On 02/20/2013 04:42 AM, Dmitry Monakhov wrote:
> > There are many situations where disk may fail for example
> > 1) brutal usb dongle unplug
> > 2) iscsi (or any other netbdev) failure due to network issues
> > In this situation filesystem which use this blockdevice is
> > expected to fail(force RO remount, abort, etc) but whole system
> > should still be operational. In other words:
> > 1) Kernel should not panic
> > 2) Memory should not leak
> > 3) Data integrity operations (sync,fsync,fdatasync, directio) should fail
> >     for affected filesystem
> > 4) It should be possible to umount broken filesystem
> >
> > Later when disk becomes available again we expect(only for journaled filesystems):
> > 5) It will be possible to mount filesystem w/o explicit fsck (in order to caught
> 
> typo                                     s/caught/catch/g
> 
> >     issues like https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/1983981/)
> > 6) Filesystem should be operational
> > 7) After mount/umount has being done all errors should be fixed so fsck should
> >     not spot any issues.
> >
> > This test use fault enjection (CONFIG_FAIL_MAKE_REQUEST=y config option )
>    May want to mention all the kernel config options required.
> i.e. CONFIG_FAULT_INJECTION=y ... are there others?
> CONFIG_FAULT_INJECTION_DEBUG_FS=y ???
Yes, all three options are required. 
> 
> > which force all new IO requests to fail for a given device. Xfs already has
>    to force
> 
> > XFS_IOC_GOINGDOWN ioctl which provides similar behaviour, but it is fs speciffic
> 
> typos s/behaviour/behavior/g  s/speciffic/specific
>                                          > and it does it in an easy way 
> because it perform freeze_bdev() before actual
> > shotdown.
> typo s/shotdown/shutdown/g
Agree with your diagnosis. My gramma is bad and I've forget to call spell check
before submission. Should I resend this one or you fix it manually
on commit time?
> 
> >
> > Test run fsstress in background and then force disk failure.
> > Once disk failed it check that (1)-(4) is true.
>    Once the disk fails, check that (1)-(4) are true.
> 
> > Then makes disk available again and check that (5)-(7) is also true
>         make the disk ...                                 are
> >
> > BE CAREFUL!! test known to cause memory corruption for XFS
> > see: https://gist.github.com/dmonakhov/4953045
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> 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
--
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