Re: [PATCH v3] fstests: btrfs/159 superblock corruption test case

[Eryu Guan <guaneryu@gmail.com>]

On Sat, Apr 14, 2018 at 06:43:49AM +0800, Anand Jain wrote:
> 
> > > +# Test if the superblock corruption is handled correctly:
> > > +# 	- Test fsid miss-match (csum ok) between primary and copy superblock
> > > +#	Fixed by the ML patch:
> > > +#	btrfs: check if the fsid in the primary sb and copy sb are same
> > > +# 	- Test if the mount fails if the primary superblock csum is
> > > +#		corrupted on any disk
> > > +# 	- Test if the mount does not fail if the copy1 sb csum is corrupted
> > > +#	Fixed by the ML patches:
> > > +#	btrfs: verify superblock checksum during scan
> > > +#	btrfs: verify checksum for all devices in mount context
> > 
> > Do you have a tree that I can pull from? I want to make sure the test
> > does pass on patched kernel, but the patchset doesn't apply on v4.16
> > kernel.
> 
> We have new discussions on whether to check for the alien-superblock and
> the superblock-checksum at the mount and scan time respectively. And
> depending on its outcome this test-case should be modified as well. So
> can you please defer this fstest patch, for now, I shall send a revised
> fstest patch when kernel patches gets integrated.

Thanks for the heads-up, I'll drop it for now.

> 
> In any case, if you want to give a try, those patches are base on kdave repo
> at [1].
>  [1]
>  https://github.com/kdave/btrfs-devel.git misc-next

Thanks!

Eryu