On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 03:15:58PM -0700, Boris Burkov wrote:
> There are some btrfs specific fsverity scenarios that don't map
> neatly onto the tests in generic/574 like holes, inline extents,
> and preallocated extents. Cover those in a btrfs specific test.
>
> This test relies on the btrfs implementation of fsverity in the patch:
> btrfs: initial fsverity support
>
> and on btrfs-corrupt-block for corruption in the patches titled:
> btrfs-progs: corrupt generic item data with btrfs-corrupt-block
> btrfs-progs: expand corrupt_file_extent in btrfs-corrupt-block
>
> Signed-off-by: Boris Burkov <boris@xxxxxx>
> ---
> common/btrfs | 5 ++
> common/config | 1 +
> common/verity | 14 ++++
> tests/btrfs/290 | 168 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> tests/btrfs/290.out | 25 +++++++
> 5 files changed, 213 insertions(+)
> create mode 100755 tests/btrfs/290
> create mode 100644 tests/btrfs/290.out
>
> diff --git a/common/btrfs b/common/btrfs
> index 670d9d1f..c3a7dc6e 100644
> --- a/common/btrfs
> +++ b/common/btrfs
> @@ -511,3 +511,8 @@ _btrfs_metadump()
> $BTRFS_IMAGE_PROG "$device" "$dumpfile"
> [ -n "$DUMP_COMPRESSOR" ] && $DUMP_COMPRESSOR -f "$dumpfile" &> /dev/null
> }
> +
> +_require_btrfs_corrupt_block()
> +{
> + _require_command "$BTRFS_CORRUPT_BLOCK_PROG" btrfs-corrupt-block
> +}
> diff --git a/common/config b/common/config
> index 479e50d1..67bdf912 100644
> --- a/common/config
> +++ b/common/config
> @@ -296,6 +296,7 @@ export BTRFS_UTIL_PROG=$(type -P btrfs)
> export BTRFS_SHOW_SUPER_PROG=$(type -P btrfs-show-super)
> export BTRFS_CONVERT_PROG=$(type -P btrfs-convert)
> export BTRFS_TUNE_PROG=$(type -P btrfstune)
> +export BTRFS_CORRUPT_BLOCK_PROG=$(type -P btrfs-corrupt-block)
> export XFS_FSR_PROG=$(type -P xfs_fsr)
> export MKFS_NFS_PROG="false"
> export MKFS_CIFS_PROG="false"
> diff --git a/common/verity b/common/verity
> index 1afe4a82..77766fca 100644
> --- a/common/verity
> +++ b/common/verity
> @@ -3,6 +3,8 @@
> #
> # Functions for setting up and testing fs-verity
>
> +. common/btrfs
> +
> _require_scratch_verity()
> {
> _require_scratch
> @@ -48,6 +50,15 @@ _require_scratch_verity()
> FSV_BLOCK_SIZE=$(get_page_size)
> }
>
> +# Check for userspace tools needed to corrupt verity data or metadata.
> +_require_fsverity_corruption()
> +{
> + _require_xfs_io_command "fiemap"
> + if [ $FSTYP == "btrfs" ]; then
> + _require_btrfs_corrupt_block
> + fi
> +}
This is adding a second definition of _require_fsverity_corruption().
Probably a rebase error.
Also, is this hunk in the right patch? This patch is for adding btrfs/290;
however, btrfs/290 doesn't use _require_fsverity_corruption() anymore.
> +
> # Check for CONFIG_FS_VERITY_BUILTIN_SIGNATURES=y, as well as the userspace
> # commands needed to generate certificates and add them to the kernel.
> _require_fsverity_builtin_signatures()
> @@ -153,6 +164,9 @@ _scratch_mkfs_verity()
> ext4|f2fs)
> _scratch_mkfs -O verity
> ;;
> + btrfs)
> + _scratch_mkfs
> + ;;
I think a good way to organize things would be to wire up the existing verity
tests for btrfs first, then to add the btrfs-specific tests at thet end of the
series. That would mean the above hunk would go earlier in the series, not with
btrfs/290. It's a little hard to review as-is, as the different hunks needed to
wire up the existing tests are mixed around in different patches.
- Eric
