linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] check,common/{preamble,rc},soak: Decoupling init

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: <20250307174045.GR2803749@frogsfrogsfrogs>
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2025 09:40:45 -0800
From: "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>
To: "Nirjhar Roy (IBM)" <nirjhar.roy.lists@...il.com>
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, david@...morbit.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] check,common/{preamble,rc},soak: Decoupling
 init_rc() call from sourcing common/rc

On Fri, Mar 07, 2025 at 11:21:15AM +0530, Nirjhar Roy (IBM) wrote:
> 
> On 3/6/25 23:16, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 06, 2025 at 08:17:41AM +0000, Nirjhar Roy (IBM) wrote:
> > > Silently executing scripts during sourcing common/rc doesn't look good
> > > and also causes unnecessary script execution. Decouple init_rc() call
> > > and call init_rc() explicitly where required.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Nirjhar Roy (IBM) <nirjhar.roy.lists@...il.com>
> > > ---
> > >   check           | 10 ++--------
> > >   common/preamble |  1 +
> > >   common/rc       |  2 --
> > >   soak            |  1 +
> > >   4 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/check b/check
> > > index ea92b0d6..d30af1ba 100755
> > > --- a/check
> > > +++ b/check
> > > @@ -840,16 +840,8 @@ function run_section()
> > >   		_prepare_test_list
> > >   	elif [ "$OLD_TEST_FS_MOUNT_OPTS" != "$TEST_FS_MOUNT_OPTS" ]; then
> > >   		_test_unmount 2> /dev/null
> > > -		if ! _test_mount
> > > -		then
> > > -			echo "check: failed to mount $TEST_DEV on $TEST_DIR"
> > > -			status=1
> > > -			exit
> > > -		fi
> > Unrelated change?  I was expecting a mechanical ". ./common/rc" =>
> > ". ./common/rc ; init_rc" change in this patch.
> This patch adds an init_rc() call to _begin_fstests() in common/preamble and
> hence the above _test_mount() will be executed during that call. So this
> _test_mount isn't necessary here, right? _test_mount() will be executed (as
> a part of init_rc() call) before every test run. Please let me know if my
> understanding isn't correct.

It's true that in terms of getting the test filesystem mounted, the
_test_mount here and in init_rc are redundant.  But look at what happens
on error here -- we print "check: failed to mount..." to signal that the
new section's TEST_FS_MOUNT_OPTS are not valid, and exit the ./check
process.

By deferring the mount to the init_rc in _preamble, that means that
we'll run the whole section with bad mount options, most likely
resulting in every test spewing "common/rc: could not mount..." and
appearing to fail.

I think.  I'm not sure what "status=1; exit" does as compared to
"exit 1"; AFAICT the former actually results in an exit code of 0
because the (otherwise pointless) assignment succeeds.

Granted, the init_rc that you remove below would also catch that case
and exit ./check

> > >   	fi
> > > -	init_rc
> > Why remove init_rc here?
> Same reason as above.

But that's an additional change in behavior.  If there's no reason for
calling init_rc() from run_section() then that should be a separate
patch with a separate justification.

--D

> > 
> > > -
> > >   	seq="check.$$"
> > >   	check="$RESULT_BASE/check"
> > > @@ -870,6 +862,8 @@ function run_section()
> > >   	needwrap=true
> > >   	if [ ! -z "$SCRATCH_DEV" ]; then
> > > +		_check_mounted_on SCRATCH_DEV $SCRATCH_DEV SCRATCH_MNT $SCRATCH_MNT
> > > +		[ $? -le 1 ] || exit 1
> > >   	  _scratch_unmount 2> /dev/null
> > >   	  # call the overridden mkfs - make sure the FS is built
> > >   	  # the same as we'll create it later.
> > > diff --git a/common/preamble b/common/preamble
> > > index 0c9ee2e0..c92e55bb 100644
> > > --- a/common/preamble
> > > +++ b/common/preamble
> > > @@ -50,6 +50,7 @@ _begin_fstest()
> > >   	_register_cleanup _cleanup
> > >   	. ./common/rc
> > > +	init_rc
> > >   	# remove previous $seqres.full before test
> > >   	rm -f $seqres.full $seqres.hints
> > > diff --git a/common/rc b/common/rc
> > > index d2de8588..f153ad81 100644
> > > --- a/common/rc
> > > +++ b/common/rc
> > > @@ -5754,8 +5754,6 @@ _require_program() {
> > >   	_have_program "$1" || _notrun "$tag required"
> > >   }
> > > -init_rc
> > > -
> > >   ################################################################################
> > >   # make sure this script returns success
> > >   /bin/true
> > > diff --git a/soak b/soak
> > > index d5c4229a..5734d854 100755
> > > --- a/soak
> > > +++ b/soak
> > > @@ -5,6 +5,7 @@
> > >   # get standard environment, filters and checks
> > >   . ./common/rc
> > > +# ToDo: Do we need an init_rc() here? How is soak used?
> > I have no idea what soak does and have never used it, but I think for
> > continuity's sake you should call init_rc here.
> 
> Okay. I think Dave has suggested removing this file[1]. This doesn't seem to
> used anymore.
> 
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/Z8oT_tBYG-a79CjA@dread.disaster.area/
> 
> --NR
> 
> > 
> > --D
> > 
> > >   . ./common/filter
> > >   tmp=/tmp/$$
> > > -- 
> > > 2.34.1
> > > 
> > > 
> -- 
> Nirjhar Roy
> Linux Kernel Developer
> IBM, Bangalore
> 
>