On Wed, 2023-06-21 at 20:22 +0500, Stas Sergeev wrote:
> Test the basic locking stuff on 2 fds: multiple read locks,
> conflicts between read and write locks, use of len==0 for queries.
> Also tests for F_UNLCK F_OFD_GETLK extension.
>
> Signed-off-by: Stas Sergeev <stsp2@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> CC: Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx>
> CC: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@xxxxxxxxxx>
> CC: Alexander Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> CC: Christian Brauner <brauner@xxxxxxxxxx>
> CC: linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> CC: linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> CC: Shuah Khan <shuah@xxxxxxxxxx>
> CC: linux-kselftest@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> CC: linux-api@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> ---
> tools/testing/selftests/locking/Makefile | 2 +
> tools/testing/selftests/locking/ofdlocks.c | 132 +++++++++++++++++++++
> 2 files changed, 134 insertions(+)
> create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/locking/ofdlocks.c
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/locking/Makefile b/tools/testing/selftests/locking/Makefile
> index 6e7761ab3536..a83ced1626de 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/locking/Makefile
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/locking/Makefile
> @@ -7,4 +7,6 @@ all:
>
> TEST_PROGS := ww_mutex.sh
>
> +TEST_GEN_PROGS := ofdlocks
> +
> include ../lib.mk
I'm not sure this really belongs in the "locking" directory. Given that
there is only the ww_mutex test in there, that's more for internal
synchronization mechanisms, I think.
Can you create a new "filelock" directory and drop this into there
instead?
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/locking/ofdlocks.c b/tools/testing/selftests/locking/ofdlocks.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..1ccb2b9b5ead
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/locking/ofdlocks.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,132 @@
> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> +
> +#define _GNU_SOURCE
> +#include <fcntl.h>
> +#include <assert.h>
> +#include <stdio.h>
> +#include <unistd.h>
> +#include <string.h>
> +#include "../kselftest.h"
> +
> +static int lock_set(int fd, struct flock *fl)
> +{
> + int ret;
> +
> + fl->l_pid = 0; // needed for OFD locks
> + fl->l_whence = SEEK_SET;
> + ret = fcntl(fd, F_OFD_SETLK, fl);
> + if (ret)
> + perror("fcntl()");
> + return ret;
> +}
> +
> +static int lock_get(int fd, struct flock *fl)
> +{
> + int ret;
> +
> + fl->l_pid = 0; // needed for OFD locks
> + fl->l_whence = SEEK_SET;
> + ret = fcntl(fd, F_OFD_GETLK, fl);
> + if (ret)
> + perror("fcntl()");
> + return ret;
> +}
> +
> +int main(void)
> +{
> + int rc;
> + struct flock fl, fl2;
> + int fd = open("/tmp/aa", O_RDWR | O_CREAT | O_EXCL, 0600);
> + int fd2 = open("/tmp/aa", O_RDONLY);
> +
> + unlink("aa");
> + assert(fd != -1);
> + assert(fd2 != -1);
> + ksft_print_msg("[INFO] opened fds %i %i\n", fd, fd2);
> +
> + /* Set some read lock */
> + fl.l_type = F_RDLCK;
> + fl.l_start = 5;
> + fl.l_len = 3;
> + rc = lock_set(fd, &fl);
> + if (rc == 0) {
> + ksft_print_msg
> + ("[SUCCESS] set OFD read lock on first fd\n");
> + } else {
> + ksft_print_msg("[FAIL] to set OFD read lock on first fd\n");
> + return -1;
> + }
> + /* Make sure read locks do not conflict on different fds. */
> + fl.l_type = F_RDLCK;
> + fl.l_start = 5;
> + fl.l_len = 1;
> + rc = lock_get(fd2, &fl);
> + if (rc != 0)
> + return -1;
> + if (fl.l_type != F_UNLCK) {
> + ksft_print_msg("[FAIL] read locks conflicted\n");
> + return -1;
> + }
> + /* Make sure read/write locks do conflict on different fds. */
> + fl.l_type = F_WRLCK;
> + fl.l_start = 5;
> + fl.l_len = 1;
> + rc = lock_get(fd2, &fl);
> + if (rc != 0)
> + return -1;
> + if (fl.l_type != F_UNLCK) {
> + ksft_print_msg
> + ("[SUCCESS] read and write locks conflicted\n");
> + } else {
> + ksft_print_msg
> + ("[SUCCESS] read and write locks not conflicted\n");
> + return -1;
> + }
> + /* Get info about the lock on first fd. */
> + fl.l_type = F_UNLCK;
> + fl.l_start = 5;
> + fl.l_len = 1;
> + rc = lock_get(fd, &fl);
> + if (rc != 0) {
> + ksft_print_msg
> + ("[FAIL] F_OFD_GETLK with F_UNLCK not supported\n");
> + return -1;
> + }
> + if (fl.l_type != F_UNLCK) {
> + ksft_print_msg
> + ("[SUCCESS] F_UNLCK test returns: locked, type %i pid %i len %zi\n",
> + fl.l_type, fl.l_pid, fl.l_len);
> + } else {
> + ksft_print_msg
> + ("[FAIL] F_OFD_GETLK with F_UNLCK did not return lock info\n");
> + return -1;
> + }
> + /* Try the same but by locking everything by len==0. */
> + fl2.l_type = F_UNLCK;
> + fl2.l_start = 0;
> + fl2.l_len = 0;
> + rc = lock_get(fd, &fl2);
> + if (rc != 0) {
> + ksft_print_msg
> + ("[FAIL] F_OFD_GETLK with F_UNLCK not supported\n");
> + return -1;
> + }
> + if (memcmp(&fl, &fl2, sizeof(fl))) {
> + ksft_print_msg
> + ("[FAIL] F_UNLCK test returns: locked, type %i pid %i len %zi\n",
> + fl.l_type, fl.l_pid, fl.l_len);
> + return -1;
> + }
> + ksft_print_msg("[SUCCESS] F_UNLCK with len==0 returned the same\n");
> + /* Get info about the lock on second fd - no locks on it. */
> + fl.l_type = F_UNLCK;
> + fl.l_start = 0;
> + fl.l_len = 0;
> + lock_get(fd2, &fl);
> + if (fl.l_type != F_UNLCK) {
> + ksft_print_msg
> + ("[FAIL] F_OFD_GETLK with F_UNLCK return lock info from another fd\n");
> + return -1;
> + }
> + return 0;
> +}
I'm not opposed to adding a selftest here, but most filesystem testing
is done via xfstests:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/fs/xfs/xfstests-dev.git/
It would be better to add this test to the existing generic/478 test
that tests OFD locks. Can you patch that to add a test for the new
functionality?
Thanks,
--
Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx>
