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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2022 19:03:34 +0800 From: Sun Ke <sunke32@...wei.com> To: Zorro Lang <zlang@...hat.com> CC: <fstests@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] ext4/058: set 256 blocks in a block group Set 256 blocks in a block group Thanks for your suggestions, I will improve them in v2. 在 2022/7/7 23:18, Zorro Lang 写道: > On Thu, Jul 07, 2022 at 09:59:17PM +0800, Sun Ke wrote: >> Set 256 blocks in a block group, then inject I/O pressure, it will >> trigger off kernel BUG in ext4_mb_mark_diskspace_used. >> >> Regression test for commit a08f789d2ab5 ext4: fix bug_on >> ext4_mb_use_inode_pa. >> >> Signed-off-by: Sun Ke <sunke32@...wei.com> >> --- > > About the subject: > "ext4/058: set 256 blocks in a block group Set 256 blocks in a block group" > > Don't use a fixed number for new case, you can use "ext4: ...". And I can't > understand the meaning of this subject, except you say it's a duplicate :) > > >> tests/ext4/058 | 37 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> tests/ext4/058.out | 2 ++ >> 2 files changed, 39 insertions(+) >> create mode 100755 tests/ext4/058 >> create mode 100644 tests/ext4/058.out >> >> diff --git a/tests/ext4/058 b/tests/ext4/058 >> new file mode 100755 >> index 00000000..dc7903b7 >> --- /dev/null >> +++ b/tests/ext4/058 >> @@ -0,0 +1,37 @@ >> +#! /bin/bash >> +# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 >> +# Copyright (c) 2022 HUAWEI. All Rights Reserved. >> +# >> +# FS QA Test 058 >> +# >> +# Set 256 blocks in a block group, then inject I/O pressure, >> +# it will trigger off kernel BUG in ext4_mb_mark_diskspace_used >> +# >> +# Regression test for commit >> +# a08f789d2ab5 ext4: fix bug_on ext4_mb_use_inode_pa >> +# >> +. ./common/preamble >> +_begin_fstest auto >> + >> +# real QA test starts here >> + >> +# Modify as appropriate. > ^^^ > > This's comment can be removed. > >> +_supported_fs generic > > If it's a ext4 specific test case, don't use "generic" at here. > > And _fixed_by_kernel_commit() is recommend. > >> +_require_scratch >> +_require_command "$KILLALL_PROG" killall >> + >> +# set 256 blocks in a block group >> +MKFS_OPTIONS="-g 256" >> +_scratch_mkfs >>$seqres.full 2>&1 > > I think > _scratch_mkfs_ext4 -g 256 >>$seqres.full 2>&1 > is enough. Does other mkfs options will affect this testing? > > Or make sure mkfs passed: > _scratch_mkfs -g 256 >>$seqres.full 2>&1 || _fail "mkfs failed" > >> +_scratch_mount >> + >> +$FSSTRESS_PROG -d $SCRATCH_MNT -n 1000 -p 1 >> $seqres.full 2>&1 & > > Is "-p 1" necessary? > >> +sleep 3 >> +$KILLALL_PROG -q $FSSTRESS_PROG >> +wait > > Hmm.... one more background fsstress test case again ... if so, you need to make > sure the fsstress processes be killed in _cleanup(). Please refer to other cases. > > Besides that, I'm wondering if you really need to run fsstress in background? > Due to from the code logic, you run and kill it directly, then do nothing. > What special reason cause you have to run fsstress as that? > > Thanks, > Zorro > >> + >> +echo "Silence is golden" >> + >> +# success, all done >> +status=0 >> +exit >> diff --git a/tests/ext4/058.out b/tests/ext4/058.out >> new file mode 100644 >> index 00000000..fb5ca60b >> --- /dev/null >> +++ b/tests/ext4/058.out >> @@ -0,0 +1,2 @@ >> +QA output created by 058 >> +Silence is golden >> -- >> 2.13.6 >> > > . >
Powered by blists - more mailing lists