On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 09:20:44PM +0800, Boyang Xue wrote: > Hi Zorro, > > On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 7:32 PM Zorro Lang <zlang@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 04:40:56PM +0800, bxue@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > > From: Boyang Xue <bxue@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > Regression test for: > > > > > > ext4: Fix tune2fs checksum failure for mounted filesystem > > > > Better to specify the commit id number. I saw Ted has applied that patch: > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-ext4/162895105421.460437.8931255765382647790.b4-ty@xxxxxxx/ > > Thanks. I see the commit id e905fbe3fd0fdb90052f6efdf88f50a78833cfe7 > in the above URL. I didn't add it since I'm not sure if this id will > be the final id when the commit is finally merged to the mainline > kernel (Linus tree)? > > > > > And maybe you can describe *a little* more in commit log. > > Yes I can add a few words in the commit log, but actually I expect the > reader of this test reads the commit message of the mentioned commit > "ext4: Fix tune2fs checksum failure for mounted filesystem", which I > think is more precise. > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Boyang Xue <bxue@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > Hi, > > > > > > This is a new regression test for the patch > > > > > > ``` > > > ext4: Fix tune2fs checksum failure for mounted filesystem > > > > > > Commit 81414b4dd48 ("ext4: remove redundant sb checksum recomputation") > > > removed checksum recalculation after updating superblock free space / > > > inode counters in ext4_fill_super() based on the fact that we will > > > recalculate the checksum on superblock writeout. That is correct > > > assumption but until the writeout happens (which can take a long time) > > > the checksum is incorrect in the buffer cache and if tune2fs is called > > > in that time window it will complain. So return back the checksum > > > recalculation and add a comment explaining the tune2fs peculiarity. > > > > > > Fixes: 81414b4dd48f ("ext4: remove redundant sb checksum recomputation") > > > Reported-by: Boyang Xue <bxue@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> > > > ``` > > > > > > It's expected to fail on kernels from the kernel-5.11-rc1 to the latest > > > version, where tune2fs fails with: > > > > > > ``` > > > tune2fs 1.46.2 (28-Feb-2021) > > > tune2fs: Superblock checksum does not match superblock while trying to > > > open /dev/loop0 > > > Couldn't find valid filesystem superblock. > > > ``` > > > > > > Please help review this test, Thanks! > > > > > > -Boyang > > > > > > tests/ext4/309 | 42 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > tests/ext4/309.out | 2 ++ > > > 2 files changed, 44 insertions(+) > > > create mode 100755 tests/ext4/309 > > > create mode 100644 tests/ext4/309.out > > > > > > diff --git a/tests/ext4/309 b/tests/ext4/309 > > > new file mode 100755 > > > index 00000000..ae335617 > > > --- /dev/null > > > +++ b/tests/ext4/309 > > > @@ -0,0 +1,42 @@ > > > +#! /bin/bash > > > +# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 > > > +# Copyright (c) 2021 YOUR NAME HERE. All Rights Reserved. > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > Write your copyright > > I will correct it in the next version. Thanks. > > > > > > +# > > > +# FS QA Test 309 > > > +# > > > +# Test that tune2fs doesn't fail after ext4 shutdown > > > +# Regression test for commit: > > > +# ext4: Fix tune2fs checksum failure for mounted filesystem > > > +# > > > +. ./common/preamble > > > +_begin_fstest auto rw quick > > > + > > > +_cleanup() > > > +{ > > > + _scratch_unmount > > > +} > > > > I think the umount isn't necessary, so the specific _cleanup isn't > > needed either. > > The $SCRATCH_DEV was still mounted before this _cleanup(), so I'm > wondering why we shouldn't do _scratch_unmount here? And I see at > least another similar structured test ext4/306 do _scratch_unmount in > _cleanup(). The SCRATCH_DEV will be umounted, don't need to do that in the end of each test cases, except you need to do something on the unmounted SCRATCH_DEV in the end. I don't know why ext4/306 has that, maybe due to old reason, or we didn't notice/care that when we reviewed it? And it's not worth sending a patch just for removing this "not wrong but just redundant" line now. Except a patch trys to cleanup all _cleanup(). > > > > > > + > > > +# Import common functions. > > > +. ./common/filter > > > > Do you use any filter helpers below? > > No. I will remove this line in my next version. > > > > > > + > > > +# real QA test starts here > > > +_supported_fs ext4 > > > > I'm wondering if this case can be a generic case, there's nothing > > ext4 specified operations, except this line: > > > > "$TUNE2FS_PROG -l $SCRATCH_DEV" > > > > Hmm... if we can change this line to something likes _get_fs_super(), > > it might help to make this test to be a generic test. > > I think this bug is heavily related to "tune2fs", ext4 only. So I > guess an ext4 only test is enough? Just checking. That's fine for me to keep this case as an ext4 only case. > > > > > > +_require_scratch > > > +_require_scratch_shutdown > > > +_require_command "$TUNE2FS_PROG" tune2fs > > > + > > > +echo "Silence is golden" > > > + > > > +_scratch_mkfs >/dev/null 2>&1 > > > +_scratch_mount > > > +echo "ext4/309" > $SCRATCH_MNT/309.tmp > > > > It's sure this case will be "ext4/309", although you use "309" won't > > affect anything. > > Yes I can rename it to something like ext4-309.tmp if it looks better. I think something likes: echo "This is a test" > $SCRATCH_MNT/testfile is good enough, don't need the "ext4" or "309" things. > > > > > > +_scratch_shutdown > > > +_scratch_cycle_mount > > > +$TUNE2FS_PROG -l $SCRATCH_DEV >> $seqres.full 2>&1 > > > +if [ $? -eq 0 ]; then > > > + status=0 > > > +else > > > + status=1 > > > +fi > > > > Don't need to change the status value, how about write as: > > > > $TUNE2FS_PROG -l $SCRATCH_DEV >/dev/null > > > > The error output will break the golden image directly. > > How did you test that? The error output didn't break the "golden > image" in my test. [root@xx-xxxx-xx xfstests-dev]# ./check ext4/309 FSTYP -- ext4 PLATFORM -- Linux/x86_64 xx-xxxx-xx 5.14.0-rc4-xfs #14 SMP Thu Aug 12 00:56:07 CST 2021 MKFS_OPTIONS -- /dev/mapper/testvg-scratchdev MOUNT_OPTIONS -- -o acl,user_xattr -o context=system_u:object_r:root_t:s0 /dev/mapper/testvg-scratchdev /mnt/scratch ext4/309 5s ... - output mismatch (see /root/git/xfstests-dev/results//ext4/309.out.bad) --- tests/ext4/309.out 2021-08-18 18:17:15.925427714 +0800 +++ /root/git/xfstests-dev/results//ext4/309.out.bad 2021-08-19 00:17:57.001648868 +0800 @@ -1,2 +1,4 @@ QA output created by 309 Silence is golden +/usr/sbin/tune2fs: Superblock checksum does not match superblock while trying to open /dev/mapper/testvg-scratchdev +Couldn't find valid filesystem superblock. ... (Run 'diff -u /root/git/xfstests-dev/tests/ext4/309.out /root/git/xfstests-dev/results//ext4/309.out.bad' to see the entire diff) Ran: ext4/309 Failures: ext4/309 Failed 1 of 1 tests [root@xx-xxxx-xx xfstests-dev]# git diff ... _scratch_mkfs >/dev/null 2>&1 _scratch_mount -echo "ext4/309" > $SCRATCH_MNT/309.tmp +echo "This is a test" > $SCRATCH_MNT/testfile _scratch_shutdown -_scratch_cycle_mount -$TUNE2FS_PROG -l $SCRATCH_DEV >> $seqres.full 2>&1 -if [ $? -eq 0 ]; then - status=0 -else - status=1 -fi +_scratch_cycle_mount +$TUNE2FS_PROG -l $SCRATCH_DEV >/dev/null +status=0 exit Thanks, Zorro > > > > > ( cc ext4 mailist, to get more review) > > > > Thanks, > > Zorro > > Thanks for review! > > -Boyang > > > > > > + > > > +exit > > > diff --git a/tests/ext4/309.out b/tests/ext4/309.out > > > new file mode 100644 > > > index 00000000..56330d65 > > > --- /dev/null > > > +++ b/tests/ext4/309.out > > > @@ -0,0 +1,2 @@ > > > +QA output created by 309 > > > +Silence is golden > > > -- > > > 2.27.0 > > > > > >
