On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 12:53:38PM +0200, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 9:38 AM, Eryu Guan <eguan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 07, 2018 at 08:07:24PM +0200, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> >> - Check encode/write/decode/read content of lower/upper file handles
> >> - Check encode/decode/write/read content of lower/upper file handles
> >> - Check decode/read of unlinked lower/upper files and directories
> >> - Check decode/read of lower file handles after copy up, link and unlink
> >> - Check decode/read of lower file handles after rename of parent and self
> >
> > I'm wondering that if this should be split into multiple tests somehow,
> > e.g. tests on regular files, tests on dirs and tests on hardlinks? It
> > might be eaiser to review and debug when there're test failures. But I
> > have no strong preference on this.
> >
>
> I prefer not splitting the test, this is a classic test with sub-test cases.
> I may end up splitting the dir rename tests (open_by_handle -i/-o)
> to conform with a similar split that you requested in the generic test.
>
> >>
> >> This test does not cover connectable file handles of non-directories,
> >> because name_to_handle_at() syscall does not support requesting
> >> connectable file handles.
> >>
> >> This test covers only encode/decode of file handles for overlayfs
> >> configuration of lower and upper on the same fs.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@xxxxxxxxx>
> >> ---
> >> tests/overlay/050 | 291 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >> tests/overlay/050.out | 50 +++++++++
> >> tests/overlay/group | 1 +
> >> 3 files changed, 342 insertions(+)
> >> create mode 100755 tests/overlay/050
> >> create mode 100644 tests/overlay/050.out
> >
> > I ran the test on your ovl-nfs-export-v2 branch and saw failures like:
> >
> > --- tests/overlay/050.out 2018-01-16 14:51:11.350000000 +0800
> > +++ /root/xfstests/results//xfs_4k_crc/overlay/050.out.bad 2018-01-16 15:08:43.487000000 +0800
> > @@ -45,6 +45,9 @@
> > test_file_handles SCRATCH_MNT/lowertestdir/subdir -p -o lower_subdir_file_handles
> > test_file_handles SCRATCH_MNT -rp -i upper_file_handles
> > test_file_handles SCRATCH_MNT -rp -i lower_file_handles
> > +open_by_handle() returned 116 incorrectly on a linked dir!
> > test_file_handles SCRATCH_MNT -rp -i upper_subdir_file_handles
> > test_file_handles SCRATCH_MNT -rp -i lower_subdir_file_handles
> > +open_by_handle() returned 116 incorrectly on a linked dir!
> > test_file_handles SCRATCH_MNT/lowertestdir.new -rp -i lower_subdir_file_handles
> > +open_by_handle() returned 116 incorrectly on a linked dir!
> >
> > Are these failures expected?
> >
>
> No. not expected. I wonder which base fs did you test with?
> Did you have OVERLAY_FS_VERIFY=y in config or verify=on in MOUNT_OPTIONS?
> (Not that I know any of the above should matter)
I didn't have OVERLAY_FS_VERIFY set in .config, but I did mount with "-o
verify=on", and underlying fs is xfs. Here is the screenshot:
[root@bootp-73-5-205 xfstests]# OVERLAY_MOUNT_OPTIONS="-o verify=on" ./check -s xfs_4k_crc -overlay overlay/050
SECTION -- xfs_4k_crc
RECREATING -- overlay on /mnt/testarea/test
FSTYP -- overlay
PLATFORM -- Linux/x86_64 bootp-73-5-205 4.15.0-rc2.ovl+
MKFS_OPTIONS -- -f -b size=4k -m crc=1 /mnt/testarea/scratch
MOUNT_OPTIONS -- -o verify=on /mnt/testarea/scratch /mnt/testarea/scratch/ovl-mnt
overlay/050 - output mismatch (see /root/xfstests/results//xfs_4k_crc/overlay/050.out.bad)
--- tests/overlay/050.out 2018-01-16 14:51:11.350000000 +0800
+++ /root/xfstests/results//xfs_4k_crc/overlay/050.out.bad 2018-01-16 19:01:54.984000000 +0800
@@ -45,6 +45,9 @@
test_file_handles SCRATCH_MNT/lowertestdir/subdir -p -o lower_subdir_file_handles
test_file_handles SCRATCH_MNT -rp -i upper_file_handles
test_file_handles SCRATCH_MNT -rp -i lower_file_handles
+open_by_handle() returned 116 incorrectly on a linked dir!
test_file_handles SCRATCH_MNT -rp -i upper_subdir_file_handles
test_file_handles SCRATCH_MNT -rp -i lower_subdir_file_handles
+open_by_handle() returned 116 incorrectly on a linked dir!
...
(Run 'diff -u tests/overlay/050.out /root/xfstests/results//xfs_4k_crc/overlay/050.out.bad' to see the entire diff)
Ran: overlay/050
Failures: overlay/050
Failed 1 of 1 tests
And I just tried with ext4 as underlying fs and got the same result.
>
> Do you see any overlayfs warnings in dmesg?
No, there's no warnings nor other useful information in dmesg, just
mount/umount xfs and drop caches messages.
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
