On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 10:23 AM Deepa Dinamani <deepa.kernel@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 1:09 AM Amir Goldstein <amir73il@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > > I understand why you dislike the ext2+loop test, but please hear me out.
> > > >
> > > > From all the fs types that are supported by the test, only btrfs and ext4 with
> > > > large inode size are y2038 ready.
> > > > For the rest of the cases, we actually have a way to detect kernel support
> > > > from the dmesg warning, without the need for hacky ext2 loop mount.
> > > >
> > > > So how about just:
> > > > 1. moving _scratch_mount before _require_timestamp_range
> > > > 2. in _require_timestamp_range (untested):
> > > > if [ $tsmax -lt $((1<<32)) ] && ! _check_dmesg_for "supports
> > >
> > > Yeah, this looks fine. I thought about searching for dmesg warning after
> > > _scratch_mount as well, but that would _notrun if the fs is 2038-safe.
> > > This $tsmax check fixes my concern. Thanks!
> > >
> >
> > Deepa,
> >
> > Do you intend to post the simplified version or would you like me
> > to re-spin your patch?
>
> I intend to do this. Sorry, was distracted by other things. FWIW, just
> (1<<32) is not enough. The kernel prints this warning based on
> (current time + max uptime) <= tsmax. Will post this.
Also we are testing for the following timestamps in the test:
declare -a TIMESTAMPS=(
$tsmin
0
$tsmax
$((tsmax/2))
$((tsmax+1))
)
So the test can still fail if the above tsmax test passes, but the
limit patches are not in the kernel.
https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/7/29/1850 has the limits for all the
filesystems I filled in. fat, cifs, hpfs etc. all fall in this
category.
I do not see a good way of doing this unless we test for a fs that
always fails in a predictable way.
Checking for fsinfo maybe is ok. But, at that point we could just rely
on any syscall that got merged after the limits series isn't it?
-Deepa
