On Wed, Feb 05, 2025 at 10:19:59AM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 05, 2025 at 10:00:48AM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 05, 2025 at 11:37:00AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > On Tue, Feb 04, 2025 at 01:26:13PM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > > > From: Darrick J. Wong <djwong@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > >
> > > > As mentioned in the previous patch, trying to isolate processes from
> > > > separate test instances through the use of distinct Unix process
> > > > sessions is annoying due to the many complications with signal handling.
> > > >
> > > > Instead, we could just use nsexec to run the test program with a private
> > > > pid namespace so that each test instance can only see its own processes;
> > > > and private mount namespace so that tests writing to /tmp cannot clobber
> > > > other tests or the stuff running on the main system.
> > > >
> > > > However, it's not guaranteed that a particular kernel has pid and mount
> > > > namespaces enabled. Mount (2.4.19) and pid (2.6.24) namespaces have
> > > > been around for a long time, but there's no hard requirement for the
> > > > latter to be enabled in the kernel. Therefore, this bugfix slips
> > > > namespace support in alongside the session id thing.
> > > >
> > > > Declaring CONFIG_PID_NS=n a deprecated configuration and removing
> > > > support should be a separate conversation, not something that I have to
> > > > do in a bug fix to get mainline QA back up.
> > > >
> > > > Cc: <fstests@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> # v2024.12.08
> > > > Fixes: 8973af00ec212f ("fstests: cleanup fsstress process management")
> > > > Signed-off-by: "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > > check | 34 +++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
> > > > common/rc | 12 ++++++++++--
> > > > src/nsexec.c | 18 +++++++++++++++---
> > > > tests/generic/504 | 15 +++++++++++++--
> > > > tools/run_seq_pidns | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > > 5 files changed, 89 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
> > > > create mode 100755 tools/run_seq_pidns
> > >
> > > Same question as for session ids - is this all really necessary (or
> > > desired) if check-parallel executes check in it's own private PID
> > > namespace?
>
> Forgot to respond to this question --
>
> Because check-parallel runs (will run?) each child ./check instance in a
> private namepsace, each of those instances will be isolated from the
> others. So no, it's probably not absolutely necessary.
>
> However, there are a couple of reasons to let it happen: (a) the private
> ns that ./check creates in _run_seq() isolates the actual test code from
> its parent ./check process; and (b) the process started by nsexec is
> considered to be the "init" process for that namespace, so when it dies,
> the kernel will kill -9 all other processes in that namespace, so we
> won't have any stray fsstress processes that bleed into the next test.
Ok - that might be worth adding to the commit message so that anyone
looking at it in a few months time doesn't need to remember this
detail.
-Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
