On Wed, Sep 4, 2024 at 6:31 PM Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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? > That should be enough. So you have one new test that does not run on upstream kernel and runs and passes on patched kernel? > 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 $dir ftype > ;; > ext2|ext3|ext4) > > Should I include this patch as well, or did I make a mistake somewhere? > (I could add the import to the top instead if you'd prefer that.) This should already be handled by if [ -n "$OVL_BASE_FSTYP" ];then _source_specific_fs $OVL_BASE_FSTYP fi in common/overlay I think what you are missing is to export FSTYP=xfs as README.overlay suggests. It's true that ./check does not *require* defining FSTYP and can auto detect the test filesystem, but for running -overlay is it a requirement to define the base FSTYP. Thanks, Amir.
