On 2024-09-03, Amir Goldstein <amir73il@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 3, 2024 at 8:41 AM Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On 2024-09-02, Amir Goldstein <amir73il@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Mon, Sep 2, 2024 at 6:46 PM Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > Now that open_by_handle_at(2) can return u64 mount IDs, do some tests to > > > > make sure they match properly as part of the regular open_by_handle > > > > tests. > > > > > > > > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240828-exportfs-u64-mount-id-v3-0-10c2c4c16708@xxxxxxxxxx/ > > > > Signed-off-by: Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > --- > > > > v2: > > > > - Remove -M argument and always do the mount ID tests. [Amir Goldstein] > > > > - Do not error out if the kernel doesn't support STATX_MNT_ID_UNIQUE > > > > or AT_HANDLE_MNT_ID_UNIQUE. [Amir Goldstein] > > > > - v1: <https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240828103706.2393267-1-cyphar@xxxxxxxxxx/> > > > > > > Looks good. > > > > > > You may add: > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > It'd be nice to get a verification that this is indeed tested on the latest > > > upstream and does not regress the tests that run the open_by_handle program. > > > > I've tested that the fallback works on mainline and correctly does the > > test on patched kernels (by running open_by_handle directly) but I > > haven't run the suite yet (still getting my mkosi testing setup working > > to run fstests...). > > I am afraid this has to be tested. > I started testing myself and found that it breaks existing tests. > Even if you make the test completely opt-in as in v1 it need to be > tested and _notrun on old kernels. > > If you have a new version, I can test it until you get your fstests setup > ready, because anyway I would want to check that your test also > works with overlayfs which has some specialized exportfs tests. > Test by running ./check -overlay -g exportfs, but I can also do that for you. I managed to get fstests running, sorry about that... For the v3 I have ready (which includes a new test using -M), the following runs work in my VM: - ./check -g exportfs - ./check -overlay -g exportfs Should I check anything else before sending it? Also, when running the tests I think I may have found a bug? Using overlayfs+xfs leads to the following error when doing ./check -overlay if the scratch device is XFS: ./common/rc: line 299: _xfs_has_feature: command not found not run: upper fs needs to support d_type The fix I applied was simply: diff --git a/common/rc b/common/rc index 0beaf2ff1126..e6af1b16918f 100644 --- a/common/rc +++ b/common/rc @@ -296,6 +296,7 @@ _supports_filetype() local fstyp=`$DF_PROG $dir | tail -1 | $AWK_PROG '{print $2}'` case "$fstyp" in xfs) + . common/xfs _xfs_has_feature $dir ftype ;; ext2|ext3|ext4) Should I include this patch as well, or did I make a mistake somewhere? (I could add the import to the top instead if you'd prefer that.) Thanks. > > Thanks, > Amir. -- Aleksa Sarai Senior Software Engineer (Containers) SUSE Linux GmbH <https://www.cyphar.com/>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
