linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCHv3 4/4] generic/679: Add a test to check unwritten extents tracking

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:   Tue, 5 Apr 2022 16:26:50 +0530
From:   Ritesh Harjani <ritesh.list@...il.com>
To:     Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
Cc:     fstests <fstests@...r.kernel.org>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        "Darrick J . Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>,
        Ritesh Harjani <riteshh@...ux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv3 4/4] generic/679: Add a test to check unwritten extents
 tracking

On 22/04/04 09:43AM, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 31, 2022 at 06:24:23PM +0530, Ritesh Harjani wrote:
> > From: Ritesh Harjani <riteshh@...ux.ibm.com>
> >
> > With these sequence of operation (in certain cases like with ext4 fast_commit)
> > could miss to track unwritten extents during replay phase
> > (after sudden FS shutdown).
> >
> > This fstest adds a test case to test this.
> >
> > 5e4d0eba1ccaf19f
> > ext4: fix fast commit may miss tracking range for FALLOC_FL_ZERO_RANGE
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Ritesh Harjani <riteshh@...ux.ibm.com>
> > ---
> >  tests/generic/679     | 65 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >  tests/generic/679.out |  6 ++++
> >  2 files changed, 71 insertions(+)
> >  create mode 100755 tests/generic/679
> >  create mode 100644 tests/generic/679.out
> >
> > diff --git a/tests/generic/679 b/tests/generic/679
> > new file mode 100755
> > index 00000000..4f35a9cd
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/tests/generic/679
> > @@ -0,0 +1,65 @@
> > +#! /bin/bash
> > +# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> > +# Copyright (c) 2022 IBM Corporation.  All Rights Reserved.
> > +#
> > +# FS QA Test 679
> > +#
> > +# Test below sequence of operation which (w/o below kernel patch) in case of
> > +# ext4 with fast_commit may misss to track unwritten extents.
> > +# commit 5e4d0eba1ccaf19f
> > +# ext4: fix fast commit may miss tracking range for FALLOC_FL_ZERO_RANGE
> > +#
> > +. ./common/preamble
> > +_begin_fstest auto quick log shutdown recoveryloop
> > +
> > +# Override the default cleanup function.
> > +_cleanup()
> > +{
> > +	cd /
> > +	rm -r -f $tmp.*
> > +}
>
> Same as default.

ohk. So the same _cleanup() function definition is available in common/preamble
now. So I guess, we can just remove this definition from here completely.

Got it. Thanks for pointing out.

>
> > +
> > +# Import common functions.
> > +. ./common/filter
> > +. ./common/punch
> > +
> > +# real QA test starts here
> > +
> > +# Modify as appropriate.
> > +_supported_fs generic
> > +_require_scratch
> > +_require_xfs_io_command "fzero"
> > +_require_xfs_io_command "fiemap"
> > +_require_scratch_shutdown
> > +
> > +t1=$SCRATCH_MNT/t1
> > +
> > +_scratch_mkfs > $seqres.full 2>&1
> > +
> > +_scratch_mount >> $seqres.full 2>&1
> > +
> > +bs=$(_get_file_block_size $SCRATCH_MNT)
> > +
> > +# create and write data to t1
> > +$XFS_IO_PROG -f -c "pwrite 0 $((100*$bs))" $t1 | _filter_xfs_io_numbers
> > +
> > +# fsync t1
> > +$XFS_IO_PROG -c "fsync" $t1
> > +
> > +# fzero certain range in between
> > +$XFS_IO_PROG -c "fzero -k  $((40*$bs)) $((20*$bs))" $t1
> > +
> > +# fsync t1
> > +$XFS_IO_PROG -c "fsync" $t1
> > +
> > +# shutdown FS now for replay of journal to kick during next mount
> > +_scratch_shutdown -v >> $seqres.full 2>&1
> > +
> > +_scratch_cycle_mount
> > +
> > +# check fiemap reported is valid or not
> > +$XFS_IO_PROG -c "fiemap -v" $t1 | _filter_fiemap_flags $bs
> > +
> > +# success, all done
> > +status=0
> > +exit
> > diff --git a/tests/generic/679.out b/tests/generic/679.out
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 00000000..4d3c3377
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/tests/generic/679.out
> > @@ -0,0 +1,6 @@
> > +QA output created by 679
> > +wrote XXXX/XXXX bytes at offset XXXX
> > +XXX Bytes, X ops; XX:XX:XX.X (XXX YYY/sec and XXX ops/sec)
> > +0: [0..39]: none
> > +1: [40..59]: unwritten
> > +2: [60..99]: nonelast
>
> This is a subset of the the previous test, and looks like it should
> be tested first before adding the second file and punch operation
> the previous test adds to this write/zero operations. IOWs, they
> look like they could easily be combined into a single test without
> losing anything except having an extra test that has to be run...

Sure, will look into combining the two in one common generic fstest.

Thanks for the review
-ritesh