On Wed, Mar 16, 2022 at 05:26:59PM +0000, Eric Biggers wrote:
> 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.
I like that. I've definitely been struggling with getting all the hunks
in the right places.. I'll double check it all better before sending it
again. Thanks for the review,
Boris
>
> - Eric
|