From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-alma10-1.taild15c8.ts.net [100.103.45.18]) (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 73EB625B09E; Fri, 16 Oct 2026 08:24:24 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1792139066; cv=none; b=eEfMxUtkIbRMaAC2L4bXfpb/co+UQinFJfEQ1Jc2spmXaCMJNXValoZgwD/5FKtJv9hdUvgZ6oxp3jG5Fjye/+ih547S/n3upYVtQ+vyvl3UINYTNQHdcyu8OsYHHt1+L3hUM5jxXtwPhiVOwsPumAR6pRMFdPoeXTpdElzTk2M= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1792139066; c=relaxed/simple; bh=gsCkbXrLIXVA37R1ta1JzF+wYGHPncuhrdVytEsj6wQ=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=o4ZZ5uXJrscoiCtW4w64yntD5k4UbLDmbhRC30CH3hJB525p2MQ8jQarq2SmSyLzatiGskvRRbSesSEFq9Ix1fGkDkXXVTyg4r0qyh7F+WKo/bmdF8qvlVlrD1esNDH8LudLapCVDuwOA6Jbn24vBop+N9j7U+KTmZQ1SclQBMM= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=UCjp9PBq; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="UCjp9PBq" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id F04041F000C4; Fri, 16 Oct 2026 08:24:23 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1792139064; bh=GlEGrUbnHKP1BjsOjFzfwjsha3/IUQkYBUBacJtTU64=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To; b=UCjp9PBqGKme3Tn/lebea9zVie0zNnLfc0P+BBr4KNTe9uYEbFMECg3D6aZNwlQSR 78HWe5l9TWv0yXOzNpOh5XUiYUeyVfgrBUhDYmldOqBNO0Gw6x95OPEoJigiMa7Fmm wEsXzDLrjQMKnnMTKuZTPu0lkVtP6/CPgBQQG9c45fEBQwzWJnJ89b/26NraqkVShV YmhV2WACGlM67qKVB7SbbPFgqUbRLgYYfbEMUis2ew2AAVj5bwoNMISAHE1R7FqIxX YtZlERcfR9GVe7dZkxtV5Ql2ksz1ipsJVeBg00e3krQauV1W1ZFJARHL0ljKNEJChc C/v7H3Wk7XzCA== Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2026 01:24:22 -0700 From: Eric Biggers To: Qu Wenruo Cc: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, fstests@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] fstests: generic: add a test case to check fsverity reads Message-ID: <20261016082422.GA1894@sol> References: <20261011222613.10793-1-wqu@suse.com> <20261016074756.GD3049@sol> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: fstests@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: On Fri, Oct 16, 2026 at 06:35:05PM +1030, Qu Wenruo wrote: > > > 在 2026/10/16 18:17, Eric Biggers 写道: > > On Mon, Oct 12, 2026 at 08:56:13AM +1030, Qu Wenruo wrote: > > > +_fixed_by_fs_commit btrfs xxxxxxxxxxxx \ > > > + "btrfs: fix the fsverity callback where unexpected range is verified" > > > > Even without that commit, 'kvm-xfstests -c btrfs generic/807' still > > passes. Under what circumstances will this test fail? > > It need as least 7.2 upstream, which enables large data folios for btrfs by > default. > > And I can always reproduce it here, mind to provide more info about the > passed run? This is on the latest mainline (2f2f7eeef8b0). Not sure what else you're looking for. > > > +# Read the file, unpatched btrfs will verify blocks outside the read range and > > > +# trigger fs-verity warnings. > > > +# But the read itself should still be fine, as the failed part will be retried. > > > +cat "$SCRATCH_MNT/foobar" > /dev/null > > > > How about using md5sum and putting the expected value in the .out file, > > so the contents are validated too? > > That won't catch the problem. I know, but it might as well be checked too. - Eric