From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (outgoing-auth-1.mit.edu [18.9.28.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4063921324D for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2025 03:58:26 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=18.9.28.11 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1742356708; cv=none; b=GJlF8RQxx9oqAkDZjh+C7dD0XKnvzbcZIR9F+EtQg+0FAwHSCt3+iC60FSdf4MybV7YxEk4fLkf5JrDNQGIAWeRko1IdXT4a/gIpg+U3nM9Tpvji15c7zvGtxPax4g0RyTaJpR+6f47cW/I2vB/gJztgnT0QTUPEYw4NhDF5BB0= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1742356708; c=relaxed/simple; bh=tZgAcG1Bbj/mNoICVzBW6YeUa85pkzN/yarlqwpealQ=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=Tqc/zjpcsTZluvfj7MK11UR26HEhMK7GGsSJmoFbkBcIgX8U24s/RJW+3jlARy35aoZu8HSsVheryVoAOFYe9g4SE5kNiyHS/mkchJ23TQ0RV5kKNmZVOd/MOjPTfpZuRE7fwDdTUKN32zOf9Rj7qig4qoBPFg8oe5OkOehybbw= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=mit.edu; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=mit.edu; arc=none smtp.client-ip=18.9.28.11 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=mit.edu Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=mit.edu Received: from trampoline.thunk.org (pool-173-48-82-222.bstnma.fios.verizon.net [173.48.82.222]) (authenticated bits=0) (User authenticated as tytso@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id 52J3wF55020900 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 18 Mar 2025 23:58:16 -0400 Received: by trampoline.thunk.org (Postfix, from userid 15806) id D26D32E010B; Tue, 18 Mar 2025 23:58:15 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2025 23:58:15 -0400 From: "Theodore Ts'o" To: Eric Sandeen Cc: "fstests@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: generic/699 fails on ext4 due to using ext4 mount options w/ overlayfs Message-ID: <20250319035815.GG787758@mit.edu> References: <20250318235116.GE787758@mit.edu> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: fstests@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Tue, Mar 18, 2025 at 07:58:05PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: > > I shouldn't have said "failed" - you're seeing what I'm seeing, it's > skipped (not failed) because it tries to test overlayfs idmapped layers > using the ext4 default options, and acl mounts fail, skipping the test. Ah, OK. Hmm... I think the fundamental problem is that _overlay_mount_dirs() shouldn't be using _common_dev_mount_options(). Depending on the file system configuration that we might be testing, MOUNT_OPTIONS might include any number of things which overlayfs might not understand, including things like: "nfsvers=4", "data=journal", "dax", "test_dummy_encryption", "trans=virtio" ,"version=9p2000.L" ,"posixacl", "prjquota", and probably quite a few others. After all, we'd want to test overlayfs on top of (for exaple) 9pfs with generic/699, and in that case, MOUNT_OPTIONS will be set from PLAN9_MOUNT_OPTIONS, and will contain options like "version=9p2000.L" that overalyfs has no hope of handling. What I'm wondering is what mount options _overlay_mount_dirs() needs from _common_dev_mount_options()? Why is it there in the first place? If there are some specific mount options that we need to pass on to overlatyfs, maybe _overlay_mount_dirs() should be grepping out whatever mount options. it needs, instead of just blindly pulling all of the mount options? Or, maybe _overlay_mount_dirs() sould avoid calling _common_dev_mount_options if FSTYP != overlay? - Ted