linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 08/10] selftests/mm: Skip gup

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <Z9FHEdZoYbCMoj64@google.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2025 08:34:25 +0000
From: Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@...gle.com>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Cc: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, Dev Jain <dev.jain@....com>,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 08/10] selftests/mm: Skip gup_longerm tests on weird
 filesystems

On Tue, Mar 11, 2025 at 08:53:02PM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > 2. 9pfs seems to pass the f_type through from the host. So you can't
> > detect it this way anyway.
> > 
> > [3. I guess overlayfs & friends would also be an issue here although
> > that doesn't affect my usecase.]
> > 
> > Anyway, I think we would have to scrape /proc/mounts to do this :(
> > 
> 
> The question I am asking myself: is this a 9pfs design bug or is it a 9pfs
> hypervisor bug. Because we shouldn't try too hard to work around hypervisor
> bugs.
> 
> Which 9pfs implementation are you using in the hypervisor?

I'm using QEMU via virtme-ng. IIUC virtme-ng knows how to use viortfs
for the rootfs, but for individually-mounted directories with
--rwdir/--rodir it uses 9pfs unconditionally.

Even if it's a bug in QEMU, I think it is worth working around this
one way or another. QEMU by far the most practical way to run these
tests, and virtme-ng is probably the most popular/practical way to do
that. I think even if we are confident it's just a bunch of broken
code that isn't even in Linux, it's pragmatic to spend a certain
amount of energy on having green tests there.

(Also, this f_type thing might be totally intentional specified
filesystem behaviour, I don't know).