linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH 22/33] generic/631: don't run test if we can't mount overlayfs

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: <aQNNZ6lxeMntTifa@amir-ThinkPad-T480>
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2025 12:35:03 +0100
From: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com>
To: "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>
Cc: zlang@...hat.com, neal@...pa.dev, fstests@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	joannelkoong@...il.com, bernd@...ernd.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 22/33] generic/631: don't run test if we can't mount
 overlayfs

On Tue, Oct 28, 2025 at 06:26:09PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> From: Darrick J. Wong <djwong@...nel.org>
> 
> This test fails on fuse2fs with the following:
> 
> +mount: /opt/merged0: wrong fs type, bad option, bad superblock on overlay, missing codepage or helper program, or other error.
> +       dmesg(1) may have more information after failed mount system call.
> 
> dmesg logs the following:
> 
> [  764.775172] overlayfs: upper fs does not support tmpfile.
> [  764.777707] overlayfs: upper fs does not support RENAME_WHITEOUT.
> 
> From this, it's pretty clear why the test fails -- overlayfs checks that
> the upper filesystem (fuse2fs) supports RENAME_WHITEOUT and O_TMPFILE.
> fuse2fs doesn't support either of these, so the mount fails and then the
> test goes wild.
> 
> Instead of doing that, let's do an initial test mount with the same
> options as the workers, and _notrun if that first mount doesn't succeed.
> 
> Fixes: 210089cfa00315 ("generic: test a deadlock in xfs_rename when whiteing out files")
> Signed-off-by: "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>
> ---
>  tests/generic/631 |   22 ++++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 22 insertions(+)
> 
> 
> diff --git a/tests/generic/631 b/tests/generic/631
> index 72bf85e30bdd4b..64e2f911fdd10e 100755
> --- a/tests/generic/631
> +++ b/tests/generic/631
> @@ -64,6 +64,26 @@ stop_workers() {
>  	done
>  }
>  
> +require_overlayfs() {
> +	local tag="check"
> +	local mergedir="$SCRATCH_MNT/merged$tag"
> +	local l="lowerdir=$SCRATCH_MNT/lowerdir:$SCRATCH_MNT/lowerdir1"
> +	local u="upperdir=$SCRATCH_MNT/upperdir$tag"
> +	local w="workdir=$SCRATCH_MNT/workdir$tag"
> +	local i="index=off"
> +
> +	rm -rf $SCRATCH_MNT/merged$tag
> +	rm -rf $SCRATCH_MNT/upperdir$tag
> +	rm -rf $SCRATCH_MNT/workdir$tag
> +	mkdir $SCRATCH_MNT/merged$tag
> +	mkdir $SCRATCH_MNT/workdir$tag
> +	mkdir $SCRATCH_MNT/upperdir$tag
> +
> +	_mount -t overlay overlay -o "$l,$u,$w,$i" $mergedir || \
> +		_notrun "cannot mount overlayfs"
> +	umount $mergedir
> +}
> +
>  worker() {
>  	local tag="$1"
>  	local mergedir="$SCRATCH_MNT/merged$tag"
> @@ -91,6 +111,8 @@ worker() {
>  	rm -f $SCRATCH_MNT/workers/$tag
>  }
>  
> +require_overlayfs
> +
>  for i in $(seq 0 $((4 + LOAD_FACTOR)) ); do
>  	worker $i &
>  done
> 

I agree in general, but please consider this (untested) cleaner patch

Thanks,
Amir.


View attachment "0001-generic-631-don-t-run-test-if-we-can-t-mount-overlay.patch" of type "text/x-diff" (2304 bytes)