linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 3/9] selftests: block_seek_hole: add loop block driver tests

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]

Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2024 09:50:32 -0400
From: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@...hat.com>
To: Eric Blake <eblake@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Alasdair Kergon <agk@...hat.com>,
	Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com>, dm-devel@...ts.linux.dev,
	David Teigland <teigland@...hat.com>,
	Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...nel.org>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, Joe Thornber <ejt@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 3/9] selftests: block_seek_hole: add loop block driver tests

On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 07:11:30PM -0500, Eric Blake wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 04:39:04PM -0400, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> > Run the tests with:
> > 
> >   $ make TARGETS=block_seek_hole -C tools/selftests run_tests
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@...hat.com>
> > ---
> >  tools/testing/selftests/Makefile              |   1 +
> >  .../selftests/block_seek_hole/Makefile        |  17 +++
> >  .../testing/selftests/block_seek_hole/config  |   1 +
> >  .../selftests/block_seek_hole/map_holes.py    |  37 +++++++
> >  .../testing/selftests/block_seek_hole/test.py | 103 ++++++++++++++++++
> >  5 files changed, 159 insertions(+)
> >  create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/block_seek_hole/Makefile
> >  create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/block_seek_hole/config
> >  create mode 100755 tools/testing/selftests/block_seek_hole/map_holes.py
> >  create mode 100755 tools/testing/selftests/block_seek_hole/test.py
> > 
> > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/block_seek_hole/test.py
> 
> > +
> > +# Different data layouts to test
> > +
> > +def data_at_beginning_and_end(f):
> > +    f.write(b'A' * 4 * KB)
> > +    f.seek(256 * MB)
> > +
> > +    f.write(b'B' * 64 * KB)
> > +
> > +    f.seek(1024 * MB - KB)
> > +    f.write(b'C' * KB)
> > +
> > +def holes_at_beginning_and_end(f):
> > +    f.seek(128 * MB)
> > +    f.write(b'A' * 4 * KB)
> > +
> > +    f.seek(512 * MB)
> > +    f.write(b'B' * 64 * KB)
> > +
> > +    f.truncate(1024 * MB)
> > +
> > +def no_holes(f):
> > +    # Just 1 MB so test file generation is quick
> > +    mb = b'A' * MB
> > +    f.write(mb)
> > +
> > +def empty_file(f):
> > +    f.truncate(1024 * MB)
> 
> Is it also worth attempting to test a (necessarily sparse!) file
> larger than 2GiB to prove that we are 64-bit clean, even on a 32-bit
> system where lseek is different than lseek64?  (I honestly have no
> idea if python always uses 64-bit seek even on 32-bit systems,
> although I would be surprised if it were not)

Yes, it wouldn't hurt to add a test case for that. I'll do that.

Stefan

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)