On Sat, Apr 30, 2022 at 12:21:30PM -0700, Eric Biggers wrote: > From: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@xxxxxxxxxx> > > 'not_mnt OPTIONS' seems to have been intended to test that the > filesystem cannot be mounted at all with the given OPTIONS, meaning that > the mount fails as opposed to the options being ignored. However, this > doesn't actually work, as shown by the fact that the test case 'not_mnt > test_dummy_encryption=v3' is passing in the !CONFIG_FS_ENCRYPTION case. > Actually ext4 ignores this mount option when !CONFIG_FS_ENCRYPTION. > (The ext4 behavior might be changed, but that is besides the point.) > > The problem is that the do_mnt() helper function is being misused in a > context where a mount failure is expected, and it does some additional > remount tests that don't make sense in that context. So if the mount > unexpectedly succeeds, then one of these later tests can still "fail", > causing the unexpected success to be shadowed by a later failure, which > causes the overall test case to pass since it expects a failure. > > Fix this by reworking not_mnt() and not_remount_noumount() to use > simple_mount() in cases where they are expecting a failure. Also fix > up some of the naming and calling conventions to be less confusing. > Finally, make sure to test that remounting fails too, not just mounting. > > Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@xxxxxxxxxx> > --- > tests/ext4/053 | 148 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------------- > 1 file changed, 78 insertions(+), 70 deletions(-) Lukas, any thoughts on this patch? You're the author of this test. - Eric
