On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 03:45:17PM +0200, Amir Goldstein wrote: > On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 1:09 PM, Chandan Rajendra > <chandan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > This commit adds a test to verify consistent st_ino feature when > > the overlayfs instance is composed of two different underlying > > filesystem instances. > > > > For example, > > $ mount -t xfs /dev/loop0 /mnt/test > > $ mount -t xfs /dev/loop1 /mnt/scratch > > $ mkdir /mnt/scratch/upper > > $ mkdir /mnt/scratch/work > > $ mount -t overlay overlay -o lowerdir=/mnt/test \ > > -o upperdir=/mnt/scratch/upper \ > > -o workdir=/mnt/scratch/work /mnt/merge > > > > The goal of this test is to verify that overlayfs returns consistent > > st_ino for the following scenarios, > > - Copy-up of lowerdir files > > - Rename files and drop dentry/inode cache > > - Remount the overlayfs instance > > > > Signed-off-by: Chandan Rajendra <chandan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > Changelog: > > v1->v2: > > Address review comments provided by Amir. > > 1. To succeed, the test now requires the underlying base filesystems to provide > > 32-bit inode numbers or the user to provide "xino" mount option. The test > > also requires that either overlayfs 'index' config feature to be enabled by > > default or to be enabled by using the 'index=on' mount option. > > 2. Require $TEST_DEV for use as Overlayfs' lowerdir. > > 3. Pass $OVERLAY_MOUNT_OPTIONS as argument to _overlay_scratch_mount_dirs(). > > > > tests/overlay/043 | 167 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > tests/overlay/043.out | 2 + > > tests/overlay/group | 1 + > > 3 files changed, 170 insertions(+) > > create mode 100755 tests/overlay/043 > > create mode 100644 tests/overlay/043.out > > > > diff --git a/tests/overlay/043 b/tests/overlay/043 > > new file mode 100755 > > index 0000000..5778564 > > --- /dev/null > > +++ b/tests/overlay/043 > > @@ -0,0 +1,167 @@ > > +#! /bin/bash > > +# FSQA Test No. 043 > > +# > > +# Test constant inode numbers on non-samefs setup > > +# This is a variant of overlay/017 to test constant st_ino numbers for > > +# non-samefs setup. > > +# > > +# This simple test demonstrates a known issue with overlayfs: > > +# - stat file A shows inode number X > > +# - modify A to trigger copy up > > +# - stat file A shows inode number Y != X > > +# > > +# Also test if d_ino of readdir entries changes after copy up > > +# and if inode numbers persist after rename, drop caches and > > +# mount cycle. > > +# > > +# This test succeeds when either the underlying filesystems provide 32-bit > > +# inode numbers or when the xino mount option is provided. This test > > +# also requires that either overlayfs 'index' config feature to be enabled by > > +# default or to be enabled by using the 'index=on' mount option. > > +# > > > Test looks good, but I am not happy with merging this text, even though I wrote > part of it... > > Regarding the claim that the test succeeds on 32bit ino file systems, > this is not > yet true and may not be true in the future. We won't know how 'xino' will be > call or configured until the feature is merged, so I suggest to leave > this paragraph > out of the test description before merging. > > Regarding the 'index' feature text, I don't like the situation as it is. > I would like to get a feedback from Eryu after he understands the options, > but my proposal is as follows: > > - Test overlay/017 (constant st_ino/d_ino) should be independent of index > so remove "hardlink1 hardlink2" from overlay/017 FILES, because the > hardlinks use case is already covered by the more specific 018 test > which does require and enable index. > - Add the d_ino verification from 017 also to 018, so test coverage for > hardlinks doesn't change > - That makes 017 a regression test for constant st_ino/d_ino (excluding > hardlinks), even if index is disabled and 018 a regression test for hardlinks > (including st_ino/d_ino) which depends on index feature > > If that is acceptable then the new variants 017 should not require index > and a nonsamefs variant of 018 which does require index would be nice. After re-reading the patch description that introduced index feature and overlay/017,8, I agreed with above proposal, so that 017 and 018 become well separated/defined tests to cover the whole constant inode feature in samefs setup. > > Thinking out loud: would it have been better if we added a general way > to configure all tests to tun in non-samefs configuration instead of duplicating > individual test? I don't have any good ideas how that would work. I think duplicating some of the tests with a slightly different setup should be fine, we already have several examples in fstests now. Thanks, Eryu -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-unionfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
