On Sun, Apr 24, 2022 at 4:24 PM Zorro Lang <zlang@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Apr 24, 2022 at 03:02:03PM +0300, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 24, 2022 at 2:21 PM Baokun Li <libaokun1@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > xfstests support overlay+tmpfs
> >
> > Thanks for this improvement.
> > Can you please share the results of ./check -overlay -g auto ?
> >
> > How many tests ran? notran? failed?
> >
> > Best if you have those numbers compared to
> > overlay+(already supported base fs)
> >
> >
> > >
> > > ```local.config.example
> > > export FSTYP=tmpfs
> > > export TEST_DEV=tmpfs_test
> > > export TEST_DIR=/tmp/test
> > > export TEST_FS_MOUNT_OPTS="-t tmpfs"
> > > export SCRATCH_DEV=tmpfs_scratch
> > > export SCRATCH_MNT=/tmp/scratch
> > > export MOUNT_OPTIONS="-t tmpfs"
> >
> > These mount options for tmpfs are very awkward.
> > Please fix _overlay_base_mount to use -t $OVL_BASE_FSTYP
> > like _test_mount() and _try_scratch_mount() do
> >
> >
> > > ```
> > > Run `./check -overlay tests` to execute test case on overlay+tmpfs.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Baokun Li <libaokun1@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > common/config | 4 ++--
> > > common/rc | 7 ++++++-
> > > 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/common/config b/common/config
> > > index 1033b890..3dc047e8 100644
> > > --- a/common/config
> > > +++ b/common/config
> > > @@ -614,7 +614,7 @@ _overlay_config_override()
> > > # the new OVL_BASE_SCRATCH/TEST_DEV/MNT vars are set to the values
> > > # of the configured base fs and SCRATCH/TEST_DEV vars are set to the
> > > # overlayfs base and mount dirs inside base fs mount.
> > > - [ -b "$TEST_DEV" ] || [ -c "$TEST_DEV" ] || return 0
> > > + [ -b "$TEST_DEV" ] || [ -c "$TEST_DEV" ] || [ "$FSTYP" == tmpfs ] || return 0
> > >
> > > # Config file may specify base fs type, but we obay -overlay flag
> > > [ "$FSTYP" == overlay ] || export OVL_BASE_FSTYP="$FSTYP"
> >
> > Please move the setting of OVL_BASE_FSTYP to the top of the function and use
> > [ "$OVL_BASE_FSTYP" == tmpfs ] consistently.
>
> Actually I'm wondering if we can bring in a parameter to clarify that xfstests need to
> build uplying fs base on a underlying fs, don't depend on the "[ -b "$TEST_DEV" ] ||
> [ -c "$TEST_DEV" ] || [ "$FSTYP" == tmpfs ]" things. Due to:
> 1) overlayfs might not only base on localfs, it can over NFS or something likes it. (right?)
No it cannot.
The way that xfstests -overlay work is that both upper and lower layers
are created on the base fs, therefore only fs supported as upper fs
can be tested with -overlay.
None of the network fs qualify as valid overlay upper fs.
The only other non-blockdev fs besides tmpfs that could be tested
with -overlay is virtiofs.
> If so, how many judgements we need to add at here?
> 2) If xfstests can help overlayfs, that means it can help to build other fs (e.g. nfs, cifs,
> ceph, etc) from an underlying fs in one day.
>
> So how about bring in a parameter, maybe USE_UNDERLYING_FS=yes/no(default), or use "BASE_FSTYP"
> directly, e.g.
> export USE_UNDERLYING_FS=yes
> export FSTYP=tmpfs
This already exists:
export OVERLAY=true
export FSTYP=tmpfs
means exactly that, but is usually set internally by ./check -overlay
I think what you mean is that this should be a helper:
_overlay_is_valid_upper_fs()
{
local basedev=$1
case $FSTYP in
tmpfs)
return 0
;;
*)
[ -b "$basedev" ] || [ -c "$basedev" ]
return $?
;;
esac
}
Then we could whitelist other fs after tmpfs
and also blacklist other fs even if they are blockdev fs.
Thanks,
Amir.
