linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH v2] check: Fix fs specfic imports when $FSTYPE!=$OLD

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: <cee9a325-5402-4aaa-b517-d8c7bd73bfa8@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2025 23:28:23 +0530
From: "Nirjhar Roy (IBM)" <nirjhar.roy.lists@...il.com>
To: "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>
Cc: fstests@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org, ritesh.list@...il.com, ojaswin@...ux.ibm.com,
 zlang@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] check: Fix fs specfic imports when
 $FSTYPE!=$OLD_FSTYPE


On 2/6/25 21:22, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 06, 2025 at 11:05:42AM +0530, Nirjhar Roy (IBM) wrote:
>> On 1/31/25 21:54, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jan 31, 2025 at 06:49:50PM +0530, Nirjhar Roy (IBM) wrote:
>>>> On 1/29/25 21:32, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, Jan 29, 2025 at 04:48:10PM +0530, Nirjhar Roy (IBM) wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/28/25 23:39, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 28, 2025 at 05:00:22AM +0000, Nirjhar Roy (IBM) wrote:
>>>>>>>> Bug Description:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _test_mount function is failing with the following error:
>>>>>>>> ./common/rc: line 4716: _xfs_prepare_for_eio_shutdown: command not found
>>>>>>>> check: failed to mount /dev/loop0 on /mnt1/test
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> when the second section in local.config file is xfs and the first section
>>>>>>>> is non-xfs.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It can be easily reproduced with the following local.config file
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [s2]
>>>>>>>> export FSTYP=ext4
>>>>>>>> export TEST_DEV=/dev/loop0
>>>>>>>> export TEST_DIR=/mnt1/test
>>>>>>>> export SCRATCH_DEV=/dev/loop1
>>>>>>>> export SCRATCH_MNT=/mnt1/scratch
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [s1]
>>>>>>>> export FSTYP=xfs
>>>>>>>> export TEST_DEV=/dev/loop0
>>>>>>>> export TEST_DIR=/mnt1/test
>>>>>>>> export SCRATCH_DEV=/dev/loop1
>>>>>>>> export SCRATCH_MNT=/mnt1/scratch
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ./check selftest/001
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Root cause:
>>>>>>>> When _test_mount() is executed for the second section, the FSTYPE has
>>>>>>>> already changed but the new fs specific common/$FSTYP has not yet
>>>>>>>> been done. Hence _xfs_prepare_for_eio_shutdown() is not found and
>>>>>>>> the test run fails.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Fix:
>>>>>>>> Remove the additional _test_mount in check file just before ". commom/rc"
>>>>>>>> since ". commom/rc" is already sourcing fs specific imports and doing a
>>>>>>>> _test_mount.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Fixes: 1a49022fab9b4 ("fstests: always use fail-at-unmount semantics for XFS")
>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Nirjhar Roy (IBM) <nirjhar.roy.lists@...il.com>
>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>      check | 12 +++---------
>>>>>>>>      1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> diff --git a/check b/check
>>>>>>>> index 607d2456..5cb4e7eb 100755
>>>>>>>> --- a/check
>>>>>>>> +++ b/check
>>>>>>>> @@ -784,15 +784,9 @@ function run_section()
>>>>>>>>      			status=1
>>>>>>>>      			exit
>>>>>>>>      		fi
>>>>>>>> -		if ! _test_mount
>>>>>>> Don't we want to _test_mount the newly created filesystem still?  But
>>>>>>> perhaps after sourcing common/rc ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --D
>>>>>> common/rc calls init_rc() in the end and init_rc() already does a
>>>>>> _test_mount. _test_mount after sourcing common/rc will fail, won't it? Does
>>>>>> that make sense?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> init_rc()
>>>>>> {
>>>>>>        # make some further configuration checks here
>>>>>>        if [ "$TEST_DEV" = ""  ]
>>>>>>        then
>>>>>>            echo "common/rc: Error: \$TEST_DEV is not set"
>>>>>>            exit 1
>>>>>>        fi
>>>>>>
>>>>>>        # if $TEST_DEV is not mounted, mount it now as XFS
>>>>>>        if [ -z "`_fs_type $TEST_DEV`" ]
>>>>>>        then
>>>>>>            # $TEST_DEV is not mounted
>>>>>>            if ! _test_mount
>>>>>>            then
>>>>>>                echo "common/rc: retrying test device mount with external set"
>>>>>>                [ "$USE_EXTERNAL" != "yes" ] && export USE_EXTERNAL=yes
>>>>>>                if ! _test_mount
>>>>>>                then
>>>>>>                    echo "common/rc: could not mount $TEST_DEV on $TEST_DIR"
>>>>>>                    exit 1
>>>>>>                fi
>>>>>>            fi
>>>>>>        fi
>>>>>> ...
>>>>> ahahahaha yes it does.
>>>>>
>>>>> /commit message reading comprehension fail, sorry about that.
>>>>>
>>>>> Though now that you point it out, should check elide the init_rc call
>>>>> about 12 lines down if it re-sourced common/rc ?
>>>> Yes, it should. init_rc() is getting called twice when common/rc is getting
>>>> re-sourced. Maybe I can do like
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> if $RECREATE_TEST_DEV || [ "$OLD_FSTYP" != "$FSTYP" ]; then
>>>>
>>>>       <...>
>>>>
>>>>       . common/rc # changes in this patch
>>>>
>>>>       <...>
>>>>
>>>> elif [ "$OLD_TEST_FS_MOUNT_OPTS" != "$TEST_FS_MOUNT_OPTS" ]; then
>>>>
>>>>       ...
>>>>
>>>>       init_rc() # explicitly adding an init_rc() for this condition
>>>>
>>>> else
>>>>
>>>>       init_rc() # # explicitly adding an init_rc() for all other conditions.
>>>> This will prevent init_rc() from getting called twice during re-sourcing
>>>> common/rc
>>>>
>>>> fi
>>>>
>>>> What do you think?
>>> Sounds fine as a mechanical change, but I wonder, should calling init_rc
>>> be explicit?  There are not so many places that source common/rc:
>>>
>>> $ git grep 'common/rc'
>>> check:362:if ! . ./common/rc; then
>>> check:836:              . common/rc
>>> common/preamble:52:     . ./common/rc
>>> soak:7:. ./common/rc
>>> tests/generic/749:18:. ./common/rc
>>>
>>> (I filtered out the non-executable matches)
>>>
>>> I think the call in generic/749 is unnecessary and I don't know what
>>> soak does.  But that means that one could insert an explicit call to
>>> init_rc at line 366 and 837 in check and at line 53 in common/preamble,
>>> and we can clean up one more of those places where sourcing a common/
>>> file actually /does/ something quietly under the covers.
>> Okay just to clear my understanding, do you mean that the call to init_rc()
>> be removed from common/rc file and the places which actually need the call
>> to init_rc, explicitly calls init_rc() instead of sourcing ". common/rc" and
>> making common/rc do something under the cover?
> Yes.  Callsites like this:
>
> . ./common
> <horrid bash code>
>
> become this:
>
> . ./common/rc
> init_rc
> <horrid bash code>

Okay. Thank you for the confirmation.

--NR

>
> --D
>
>> --NR
>>
>>> (Unless the maintainer is ok with the status quo...?)
>>>
>>> --D
>>>
>>>>> Reviewed-by: "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>
>>>>>
>>>>> --D
>>>>>
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --NR
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -		then
>>>>>>>> -			echo "check: failed to mount $TEST_DEV on $TEST_DIR"
>>>>>>>> -			status=1
>>>>>>>> -			exit
>>>>>>>> -		fi
>>>>>>>> -		# TEST_DEV has been recreated, previous FSTYP derived from
>>>>>>>> -		# TEST_DEV could be changed, source common/rc again with
>>>>>>>> -		# correct FSTYP to get FSTYP specific configs, e.g. common/xfs
>>>>>>>> +		# Previous FSTYP derived from TEST_DEV could be changed, source
>>>>>>>> +		# common/rc again with correct FSTYP to get FSTYP specific configs,
>>>>>>>> +		# e.g. common/xfs
>>>>>>>>      		. common/rc
>>>>>>>>      		_prepare_test_list
>>>>>>>>      	elif [ "$OLD_TEST_FS_MOUNT_OPTS" != "$TEST_FS_MOUNT_OPTS" ]; then
>>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>>> 2.34.1
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>> Nirjhar Roy
>>>>>> Linux Kernel Developer
>>>>>> IBM, Bangalore
>>>>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>> Nirjhar Roy
>>>> Linux Kernel Developer
>>>> IBM, Bangalore
>>>>
>>>>
>> -- 
>> Nirjhar Roy
>> Linux Kernel Developer
>> IBM, Bangalore
>>
>>
-- 
Nirjhar Roy
Linux Kernel Developer
IBM, Bangalore