linux-ext4 - Re: [RFC PATCH] fstests: Check if a fs can survive random (emulated) power loss

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: <5c46dfaa-296e-4882-5205-13a2a6739d79@gmx.com>
Date:   Mon, 26 Feb 2018 16:41:54 +0800
From:   Qu Wenruo <quwenruo.btrfs@....com>
To:     Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com>
Cc:     Qu Wenruo <wqu@...e.com>, fstests <fstests@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Btrfs <linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-xfs <linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ext4 <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
        Josef Bacik <josef@...icpanda.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] fstests: Check if a fs can survive random (emulated)
 power loss



On 2018年02月26日 16:33, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 10:20 AM, Qu Wenruo <quwenruo.btrfs@....com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2018年02月26日 16:15, Amir Goldstein wrote:
>>> On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 9:31 AM, Qu Wenruo <wqu@...e.com> wrote:
>>>> This test case is originally designed to expose unexpected corruption
>>>> for btrfs, where there are several reports about btrfs serious metadata
>>>> corruption after power loss.
>>>>
>>>> The test case itself will trigger heavy fsstress for the fs, and use
>>>> dm-flakey to emulate power loss by dropping all later writes.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Come on... dm-flakey is so 2016
>>> You should take Josef's fsstress+log-writes test and bring it to fstests:
>>> https://github.com/josefbacik/log-writes
>>>
>>> By doing that you will gain two very important features from the test:
>>>
>>> 1. Problems will be discovered much faster, because the test can run fsck
>>>     after every single block write has been replayed instead of just at random
>>>     times like in your test
>>
>> That's what exactly I want!!!
>>
>> Great thanks for this one! I would definitely look into this.
>> (Although the initial commit is even older than 2016)
>>
> 
> Please note that Josef's replay-individual-faster.sh script runs fsck
> every 1000 writes (i.e. --check 1000), so you can play with this argument
> in your test. Can also run --fsck every --check fua or --check flush, which
> may be more indicative of real world problems. not sure.
> 
>>
>> But the test itself could already expose something on EXT4, it still
>> makes some sense for ext4 developers as a verification test case.
>>
> 
> Please take a look at generic/456
> When generic/455 found a reproduciable problem in ext4,
> I created a specific test without any randomness to pin point the
> problem found (using dm-flakey).
> If the problem you found is reproduciable, then it will be easy for you
> to create a similar "bisected" test.

Yep, it's definitely needed for a pin-point test case, but I'm also
wondering if a random, stress test could also help.

Test case with plain fsstress is already super helpful to expose some
bugs, such stress test won't hurt.

Thanks,
Qu
> 
> Thanks,
> Amir.
> 



Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (521 bytes)