Re: [PATCH] nfs/002: Add a test for xattr ctime updates

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]



On Fri, May 5, 2023 at 10:29 AM Zorro Lang <zlang@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 05, 2023 at 10:05:19PM +0800, Zorro Lang wrote:
> > On Fri, May 05, 2023 at 09:11:52AM -0400, Anna Schumaker wrote:
> > > Hi Zorro,
> > >
> > > On Fri, May 5, 2023 at 12:45 AM Zorro Lang <zlang@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, May 04, 2023 at 04:48:47PM -0400, Anna Schumaker wrote:
> > > > > From: Anna Schumaker <Anna.Schumaker@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > >
> > > > > The NFS client wasn't updating ctime after a setxattr request. This is a
> > > > > test written while fixing the bug.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Anna Schumaker <Anna.Schumaker@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > ---
> > > > >  tests/nfs/002     | 39 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > > >  tests/nfs/002.out |  2 ++
> > > > >  2 files changed, 41 insertions(+)
> > > > >  create mode 100755 tests/nfs/002
> > > > >  create mode 100644 tests/nfs/002.out
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/tests/nfs/002 b/tests/nfs/002
> > > > > new file mode 100755
> > > > > index 000000000000..5bfedef6c57d
> > > > > --- /dev/null
> > > > > +++ b/tests/nfs/002
> > > > > @@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
> > > > > +#! /bin/bash
> > > > > +# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> > > > > +# Copyright (c) 2023 Netapp Inc., All Rights Reserved.
> > > > > +#
> > > > > +# FS QA Test 002
> > > > > +#
> > > > > +# Test a bug whene the NFS client wasn't sending a post-op GETATTR to the
>                       ^^ ?

Whoops, typo! I'll fix that in v2
>
> > > > > +# server after setting an xattr, resulting in `stat` reporting a stale ctime.
>
> If there's a known bug fix (git commit) in linux, you can use
> _fixed_by_kernel_commit(), refer to other cases which use this function.
>
> > > > > +#
> > > > > +. ./common/preamble
> > > > > +_begin_fstest auto quick attr
> > > > > +
> > > > > +# Import common functions
> > > > > +. ./common/filter
>
> I think the common/filter isn't needed.
>
Okay

> > > > > +. ./common/attr
> > > > > +
> > > > > +# real QA test starts here
> > > > > +_supported_fs nfs
> > > >
> > > > Great, a new nfs test case!
> > > >
> > > > > +_require_test_nfs_version 4.2
> > > >
> > > > But I'm wondering if this case can be a generic test case, due to the operations
> > > > in this case are common (need xattr and ctime support), don't depend on
> > > > any nfs specific features/operations.
> > >
> > > This probably could be a generic test case.
> >
> > Great :)
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Not sure why nfs4.2 is necessary, can it be removed or replaced ?
> > >
> > > That's because xattrs were added to the NFS protocol in NFS v4.2, so I
> > > filtered out the other versions since they're not going to run anyway.
> > > I think xattr support is already checked to properly skip this on
> > > other versions, however, so changing this to a generic test shouldn't
> > > create a new failure on earlier NFS versions.
> >
> > That makes sense.
> >
> > >
> > > Should I send a v2 with those changes? And should I find an open test
> >
> > Sure, please send v2 to change this case to be a generic test case. Then we
> > can check if more other filesystems has this issue :)
> >
> > > number, or choose something like "generic/999"?
> >
> > That depends on you. Due to there's only one test case in this patch, so you
> > just need to base on latest for-next branch, then choose a number which has
> > been taken, I'll deal with that if there's conflict when I merge.
> >
> > > Anna
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Zorro
> > > >
>
> _require_test
>
> > > > > +_require_attrs
> > > > > +
> > > > > +touch $TEST_DIR/testfile
>
> We can't be sure there's not a file (or even a directory or others) named
> "testfile" in TEST_DIR when fstests is running. So better to remove it at
> first. E.g
>
>   rm -rf $TEST_DIR/testfile

Okay
>
> > > > > +
> > > > > +before_ctime=$(stat -c %z $TEST_DIR/testfile)
> > > > > +$SETFATTR_PROG -n user.foobar -v 123 $TEST_DIR/testfile
> > > > > +after_ctime=$(stat -c %z $TEST_DIR/testfile)
>
> Might "%Z" be better to be compared? (optional)

No, I tried that at first but since it's reporting seconds since epoch
it doesn't have enough granularity to detect the change.

Anna
>
> Thanks,
> Zorro
>
> > > > > +
> > > > > +test "$before_ctime" != "$after_ctime" || echo "Expected ctime to change."
> > > > > +
> > > > > +
> > > > > +before_ctime=$after_ctime
> > > > > +$SETFATTR_PROG -x user.foobar $TEST_DIR/testfile
> > > > > +after_ctime=$(stat -c %z $TEST_DIR/testfile)
> > > > > +
> > > > > +test "$before_ctime" != "$after_ctime" || echo "Expected ctime to change."
> > > > > +
> > > > > +echo "Silence is golden"
> > > > > +status=0
> > > > > +exit
> > > > > diff --git a/tests/nfs/002.out b/tests/nfs/002.out
> > > > > new file mode 100644
> > > > > index 000000000000..61705c7cc203
> > > > > --- /dev/null
> > > > > +++ b/tests/nfs/002.out
> > > > > @@ -0,0 +1,2 @@
> > > > > +QA output created by 002
> > > > > +Silence is golden
> > > > > --
> > > > > 2.40.1
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
>




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Filesystems Development]     [Linux NFS]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux