On Sun, Nov 28, 2021 at 10:58:04PM +0800, Eryu Guan wrote: > On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 04:00:36PM +0800, Sun Ke wrote: > > The quota index information in the image is tampered, causing illegal > > memory access. > > It is a regression test for Kernel commit 9bf3d2033129 quota: check block > > number when reading the block in quota file and commit d0e36a62bd4c > > quota: correct error number in free_dqentry(). > > > > Signed-off-by: Sun Ke <sunke32@xxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > tests/ext4/054 | 36 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > tests/ext4/054.out | 1 + > > 2 files changed, 37 insertions(+) > > create mode 100755 tests/ext4/054 > > create mode 100644 tests/ext4/054.out > > > > diff --git a/tests/ext4/054 b/tests/ext4/054 > > new file mode 100755 > > index 00000000..286b5ecb > > --- /dev/null > > +++ b/tests/ext4/054 > > @@ -0,0 +1,36 @@ > > +#! /bin/bash > > +# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 > > +# Copyright (c) 2021 Huawei. All Rights Reserved. > > +# > > +# FS QA Test 054 > > +# > > +# Regression test for kernel > > +# commit 9bf3d2033129 quota: check block number when reading the block in quota file > > +# commit d0e36a62bd4c quota: correct error number in free_dqentry() > > Better to describe the test in test description as well, e.g. what's the > bug and summarise how we're going to test it. > > > +# > > +# The test is based on a testcase from Zhang Yi <yi.zhang@xxxxxxxxxx>. > > +# > > +. ./common/preamble > > +_begin_fstest auto > > In 'quota' group as well > > > + > > +# real QA test starts here > > + > > +# Modify as appropriate. > > +_require_scratch > > +_supported_fs ext4 > > +_require_user fsgqa > > +_require_user fsgqa2 > > _require_command "$DEBUGFS_PROG" debugfs > > and use $DEBUGFS_PRG in the test. > > > + > > +_scratch_mkfs "-F -O quota -b 1024" > $seqres.full 2>&1 > > Is 1k block size a required condition to reproduce the bug? Or the > following debugfs command requires 1k fs? > > > +debugfs -w -R "zap_block -o 0 -l 1 -p 6 -f <3> 1" $SCRATCH_DEV >> $seqres.full 2>&1 Also, this corrupts the filesystem, and post-test fsck complains fs corruption. We need _require_scratch_nocheck instead of _require_scratch Thanks, Eryu > > Some comments are welcomed to describe the detailed test steps, e.g. > explain what's the purpose of this debugfs command. > > > +_scratch_mount >> $seqres.full 2>&1 > > +chown fsgqa:fsgqa $SCRATCH_MNT >> $seqres.full 2>&1 > > +touch $SCRATCH_MNT/foo >> $seqres.full 2>&1 > > +rm -f $SCRATCH_MNT/foo > > +chown fsgqa2:fsgqa2 $SCRATCH_MNT >> $seqres.full 2>&1 > > And why we need to chown fsgqa:fsgqa first and rm the file and chown to > fsgqa2 later. > > > + > > +umount $SCRATCH_MNT > > Is this required to trigger the bug? If not, this could be removed, > SCRATCH_DEV will be umounted after each test. > > > + > > +# success, all done > > +status=0 > > +exit > > diff --git a/tests/ext4/054.out b/tests/ext4/054.out > > new file mode 100644 > > index 00000000..03e258bb > > --- /dev/null > > +++ b/tests/ext4/054.out > > @@ -0,0 +1 @@ > > +QA output created by 054 > > Need "Silence is golden" to indicate this test doesn't print any output. > > Thanks, > Eryu > > > -- > > 2.13.6
