On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 04:38:08PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: > Despite the scrub test cases in fstests, there is not even one test case > which really checked if scrub can recover data. > > In fact, btrfs scrub for RAID56 will even corrupt correct data stripes. > > So let's start from the needed facilities and check scrub starting from RAID1. > > The main reason the patchset is RFC, is the method I take to corrupt/verify > btrfs data. > > unlike other stable fs, like ext* or xfs, which has good tool to > manipulate the fs. > > There used to be btrfs-corrupt-block, but it gets fewer and fewer > update, no man page nor installed by default. I really think that a tool manipulating btrfs should be developed first, especially it's greatly demanded now and there's already a prototype btrfs-corrupt-block available. Then this tool can act as a base & benefit all future tests that corrupt fs metadata. e.g. Darrick introduced blocktrash command to xfs_db and used it in many fuzz tests. IMO, let's build and/or fix the tools first. To me, this is just the right time to do this. > > Here I take the method I normally do in my scripts: use btrfs-dump-tree > (btrfs inspect-internal dump-tree) and use bash to corrupt btrfs > pinpointly. > It works quite fine for several different mount options which affects > how data lies on-disk. > > But the problem is also obvious, bash script is super hard to maintain, > and there is no promise that btrfs-dump-tree output won't change. > Such change will be destructive. Agreed, it's very hard to maintain, and, as you pointed out, the output format changing of btrfs-dump-tree makes the code even harder to read & maintain. And it's hard to extend to work with other profiles too. I'd like to hear what other btrfs developers and fstests users think. Thanks, Eryu > > But IMHO it's still worthy, or btrfs scrub may break at any time. > > Qu Wenruo (3): > fstests: common: rename _require_btrfs to _require_btrfs_subcommand > fstests: common/ondisk.btrfs: Introduce function to get btrfs ondisk > info > fstests: btrfs: Add new test case to check scrub recovery and report > > common/ondisk.btrfs | 113 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > common/rc | 2 +- > tests/btrfs/004 | 2 +- > tests/btrfs/048 | 2 +- > tests/btrfs/059 | 2 +- > tests/btrfs/131 | 2 +- > tests/btrfs/132 | 229 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > tests/btrfs/132.out | 111 +++++++++++++++++++++++++ > tests/btrfs/group | 2 + > 9 files changed, 460 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > create mode 100644 common/ondisk.btrfs > create mode 100755 tests/btrfs/132 > create mode 100644 tests/btrfs/132.out > > -- > 2.7.4 > > > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe fstests" in > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe fstests" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
