Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] xfs: Regression test for invalid sb_logsunit

Brian Foster
2018-01-16T13:58:52Z

On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 08:03:52AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 07:45:23AM -0500, Brian Foster wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 13, 2018 at 01:23:53PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 04:50:05PM +0800, Eryu Guan wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 07:36:05PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 03:49:21PM +0800, Eryu Guan wrote:
> > > > > > On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 02:16:23PM +0800, xiao yang wrote:
...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This test triggers ASSERT failure and warning on debug build, thus
> > > > > > failed _dmesg_check, I think we need _disable_dmesg_check (and some
> > > > > > comments) too.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [1809960.157615] XFS (sda6): log stripe unit 4095 bytes must be a multiple of block size
> > > > > > [1809960.159228] XFS (sda6): AAIEEE! Log failed size checks. Abort!
> > > > > > [1809960.160534] XFS: Assertion failed: 0, file: fs/xfs/xfs_log.c, line: 679
> > > > > > [1809960.162298] WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 2186 at fs/xfs/xfs_message.c:105 asswarn+0x1e/0x30 [xfs]
> > > > >
> > > > > If it triggers debug asserts which have been put there to catch bugs
> > > > > in other utilities (like mkfs) on a current upstream debug kernel,
> > > > > then the test should not be part of the auto and quick groups.
> > > >
> > > > This test corrupts the filesystem on purpose (I didn't make this clear
> > > > in my last reply, sorry about that), and xfs detects the corruption &
> > > > refuses the mount instead of crashing. So I think the ASSERT failure is
> > > > expected on debug build and we just need to ignore it.
> > >
> > > Except that after that assert, the block device is now busy and can't
> > > be released, so we can't use the scratch device anymore. All tests
> > > after this assert has been triggered are going to fail because
> > > the block device is busy....
> > >
> > > That's the whole point of adding debug asserts in cases like this -
> > > they are supposed to stop test execution in it's tracks and leave a
> > > corpse to analyse. The auto group regression tests are not supposed
> > > to take the machine down on normal test configs (i.e.
> > > CONFIG_XFS_DEBUG=y).
> > >
> >
> > FWIW, my understanding of the dangerous group has always been that it's
> > for tests that when they trigger a regression, forcibly affect the
> > entire system as such (lockup, hang, crash, etc.). IMO, a test that
> > intentionally generates an XFS assert doesn't really follow the spirit
> > of that categorization, even though technically an assert can cause a
> > BUG. This is why we have CONFIG_XFS_ASSERT_FATAL now, because unless
> > that is disabled any auto test that reproduces a regression (assuming we
> > have broad/robust assert coverage) can very easily BUG() and have the
> > associated effect on the system.
>
> And this is exactly why I opposed the CONFIG_XFS_ASSERT_FATAL
> inclusion. It started us down the slippery slope of allowing people
> to ignore asserts that indicate an impossible condition had
> occurred.
>

I thought you opposed the unconditional change from BUG() to WARN() but
supported the config option, but I could be misremembering.

> This was a bug found via fuzzing, not user problems in the wild. The
> assert had functioned perfectly well up to this point as a mechanism
> for preventing the XFS tools from creating a corrupt log stripe
> unit, and it still does....
>
> That's the point here - a corrupt log stripe unit *should never
> happen* because it should trigger a CRC validation failure long
> before we get to parsing it. If we've got a corrupt value with a
> correct CRC, then we damn well need to understand the cause
> *immediately* because something else has gone very, very wrong.
>

I'm not following the argument. What do we really lose by removing an
assert that is accompanied by mount failure and several other context
specific error messages?

> > The flipside of course is that one should generally be able to run
> > xfstests against a FATAL_ASSERTS=y kernel that otherwise has no
> > regressions and not bork the system because a test generates a BUG() as
> > part of a successful run.
>
> That is the historical behaviour of CONFIG_XFS_DEBUG=y and the
> historical policy for xfstests. Adding CONFIG_XFS_ASSERT_FATAL does
> not change that because (at least) some of use still treat asserts
> as fatal.
>

Agree (I thought that's exactly what I said above..? ;)).

> > Perhaps the root problem here is that the
> > kernel generates an assert from a codepath that "successfully" handles
> > the erroneous situation.
>
> We do that all over the place - the assert is there because it
> indicates a fatal problem has occurred that should never happen.
> For production systems, we still have to handle that gracefully
> because people do fuzz testing of "should never happen" conditions
> and then get upset we fail to detect this. That does not mean
> the ASSERT is wrong - it makes it even more important that
> developers know when their code hits these cases....
>

I'm not suggesting the assert is wrong, that we don't do this all over
the place already, or that we should never do the ASSERT(0) thing. I'm
suggesting that in this specific case, the most practical thing may be
just to delete the assert rather than categorize this new test as
dangerous.

> If we really want to test these "should not ever happen" conditions
> that trigger asserts on debug kernels as "everyone always runs"
> regression testing, then these need to _notrun on CONFIG_XFS_DEBUG=y
> kernels. fstests already knows that it's running on a debug kernel,
> so adding a _requires_production_kernel check may be the way around
> this being considered a dangerous test.
>

I think that's overkill for the time being, but I suppose is a
reasonable option in the long term as we end up with more of this
particular situation (fuzzer-like tests vs. ASSERT()). I think more
broadly useful would be to use the bug_on_assert sysfs value where it's
available, then fall back to DEBUG=1 if necessary.

> > We already spit out several error messages and
> > fail the mount, so my .02 (fwiw) would be to leave the test as
> > auto+dangerous, delete the useless assert and let people affected by
> > older kernels (w/ FATAL_ASSERT behavior) filter out the test as
> > appropriate in those environments. (Looking back, I see Darrick already
> > suggested to delete the assert as well...).
>
> ... and this specific assert caught multiple bugs I introduced while
> refactoring mkfs recently. That's it's purpose, and it works for
> that purpose very well.
>

Maybe I'm missing something.. the mount would have still failed and spit
out the error message as well, right?

> > > If you want to test dangerous regression tests, then you need to
> > > *opt-in* by adding "-g dangerous", not force everyone else to
> > > opt-out by having to run "-g auto -x dangerous".
> > >
> >
> > I often explicitly filter out the dangerous group as above because we
> > already have more than a handful of tests that are in both groups. I
> > don't think they've historically been mutually exclusive.
>
> Which means we've already deviated from the historic policy. That
> doesn't mean it the right direction to take.
>

I've taken this approach with xfstests for as long as I can remember
(running the dangerous tests separately at least, so as to not interrupt
a longer running auto run). This doesn't have anything to do with the
whole FATAL_ASSERT thing because most of those dangerous tests weren't
considered dangerous just because they triggered an assert. They were
dangerous because they hung or caused bad memory accesses or some such
on kernels without the associated fix. That actually makes me wonder
whether we should have some kind of dangerous expiration policy where
the tag could be removed after some period of time (where fixes have had
plenty of time to trickle into stable kernels), but that's a separate
topic.

The FATAL_ASSERT thing was more about the ability to enable all of the
additional DEBUG mode code we have (things like sparse inode injection,
etc., that simply cannot be enabled on DEBUG=0) without also having to
crash the box if an assertion fails.

Brian

> Cheers,
>
> Dave.
> --
> Dave Chinner
> david@fromorbit.com
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe fstests" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html