On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 8:33 AM Xiao Yang <yangx.jy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Amir, > > I always got diffenent inode number if underlying fileystem is ext4. > ------------------------------------------------ > # diff -u /var/lib/xfstests/tests/overlay/071.out > /var/lib/xfstests/results//overlay/071.out.bad > --- /var/lib/xfstests/tests/overlay/071.out 2020-09-30 > 12:59:30.478968816 +0800 > +++ /var/lib/xfstests/results//overlay/071.out.bad 2020-09-30 > 13:13:02.342920819 +0800 > @@ -1,2 +1,26 @@ > QA output created by 071 > +--- /tmp/25096.lower.lo 2020-09-30 13:12:59.594920981 +0800 > ++++ /tmp/25096.before.lo 2020-09-30 13:12:59.706920975 +0800 > +@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@ > +-8590721028 file > +-8590721029 symlink > +-8590721030 link > +-8590721031 chrdev > +-8590721032 blkdev > +-8590721033 fifo > +-8590721034 socket > ++9223372045445496836 file > ++9223372045445496837 symlink > ++9223372045445496838 link > ++9223372045445496839 chrdev > ++9223372045445496840 blkdev > ++9223372045445496841 fifo > ++9223372045445496842 socket > +file not found by ino 8590721028 (from /tmp/25096.lower.lo) - see > /var/lib/xfstests/results//overlay/071.full > +symlink not found by ino 8590721029 (from /tmp/25096.lower.lo) - see > /var/lib/xfstests/results//overlay/071.full > +link not found by ino 8590721030 (from /tmp/25096.lower.lo) - see > /var/lib/xfstests/results//overlay/071.full > +chrdev not found by ino 8590721031 (from /tmp/25096.lower.lo) - see > /var/lib/xfstests/results//overlay/071.full > +blkdev not found by ino 8590721032 (from /tmp/25096.lower.lo) - see > /var/lib/xfstests/results//overlay/071.full > +fifo not found by ino 8590721033 (from /tmp/25096.lower.lo) - see > /var/lib/xfstests/results//overlay/071.full > +socket not found by ino 8590721034 (from /tmp/25096.lower.lo) - see > /var/lib/xfstests/results//overlay/071.full > Silence is golde > ------------------------------------------------ > Is this expected behavior? :-) Yes and No :-) The result is expected. It is not expected for the test to fail. This is a test bug. The bug is in this line and in the comment above it: # Compare inode numbers in lower overlay vs. nested overlay # With nested xino lower/lower, all inode numbers overflow xino bits and # d_ino/i_ino in nested overlay are the same as in lower overlay. check_inode_numbers $lowertestdir $tmp.lower.lo $tmp.before.lo This test is meant to cover the case of "xino=on/auto, ino overflow" from: https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/Documentation/filesystems/overlayfs.rst#inode-properties The correct part of the comment is: # With nested xino lower, all inode numbers overflow xino bits Meaning that all inode numbers at $lowertestdir have the MSB set (e.g. file ino 9223372045445496836 = 0x80000002000C0004) With lower fs xfs, the other part of the comment is also correct: # ...and d_ino/i_ino in nested overlay are the same as in lower overlay Because in the lower overlay ($SCRATCH_MNT/lowertestdir) lower files also have the MSB set. However, because ext4 has a known inode number limit of 32bit (see ovl_can_decode_fh) the lower overlay inodes do not have the MSB set (e.g. file ino 8590721028 = 0x2000C0004). Long story short, I think we need to remove this line and comment from the test and leave it the same as overlay/070: # Record inode numbers before copy up record_inode_numbers $lowertestdir $tmp.before.lo record_inode_numbers $uppertestdir $tmp.before.up This recording is just for the sake of logging info in 070.full. > > Best Regards, > Xiao Yang > On 2020/9/30 13:04, Xiao Yang wrote: > > Replace undefined OVL_BASE_SCRATCH_DIR with OVL_BASE_SCRATCH_MNT > > > > Signed-off-by: Xiao Yang <yangx.jy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Reviewed-by: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@xxxxxxxxx> Will you also fix the test bug please. Thanks! Amir.
