linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH v1 3/3] xfs: Add a testcase to check remount with noattr2 on a v5 xfs

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: <90be3350-67e5-4dec-bc65-442762f5f856@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2025 20:34:44 +0530
From: "Nirjhar Roy (IBM)" <nirjhar.roy.lists@...il.com>
To: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
Cc: fstests@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org, ritesh.list@...il.com, ojaswin@...ux.ibm.com,
 djwong@...nel.org, zlang@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 3/3] xfs: Add a testcase to check remount with noattr2
 on a v5 xfs


On 2/18/25 03:59, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 17, 2025 at 10:18:48AM +0530, Nirjhar Roy (IBM) wrote:
>> On 2/14/25 03:19, Dave Chinner wrote:
>>> On Thu, Feb 13, 2025 at 03:30:50PM +0530, Nirjhar Roy (IBM) wrote:
>>>> On 2/13/25 03:17, Dave Chinner wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 12:39:58PM +0000, Nirjhar Roy (IBM) wrote:
>>> Ok, so CONFIG_XFS_SUPPORT_V4=n is the correct behaviour (known mount
>>> option, invalid configuration being asked for), and it is the
>>> CONFIG_XFS_SUPPORT_V4=y behaviour that is broken.
>> Okay, so do you find this testcase (patch 3/3 xfs: Add a testcase to check
>> remount with noattr2 on a v5 xfs) useful,
> Not at this point in time, because xfs/189 is supposed to exercise
> attr2/noattr2 mount/remount behaviour and take into account all the
> weirdness of the historic mount behaviour.
>
> Obviously, it is not detecting that this noattr2 remount behaviour
> was broken, so that test needs fixing/additions.  Indeed, it's
> probably important to understand why xfs/189 isn't detecting this
> failure before going any further, right?
Yes. Let me look into what xfs/189 does and why it isn't detecting the 
noattr2 remount broken behavior. Thank you for the pointer.

About "Patch 1/3: xfs/539: Skip noattr2 remount option on v5 file 
systems" --> I wrote the patch because xfs/539 has started failing in 
one of fstests CI runs because RHEL 10 has started disabling xfs v4 
support i.e, CONFIG_XFS_SUPPORT_V4=n. Do you think modifying patch 
1/3(xfs/539) in such a way that the test ignores the remount failures 
with noattr2 and continues the test is an appropriate idea (since the 
test xfs/539 only intends to check the dmesg warnings)?

--NR

>
> IMO, it is better to fix existing tests that exercise the behaviour
> in question than it is to add a new test that covers just what the
> old test missed.
>
> -Dave.

-- 
Nirjhar Roy
Linux Kernel Developer
IBM, Bangalore