From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.156.1]) (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 ECA8D249E5; Fri, 22 Nov 2024 19:06:39 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=148.163.156.1 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1732302401; cv=none; b=Cc8XN9MrnMbHnPF7G81wN3hkRBxZOdYsXZonp9s5MgfJBWuRGj9jVVgiRC7jwxQ7IcHAWpGtDu5CWwcMHyzlYchKGDiFxIcryYkvA0MpaoUevTvJjrT2ikqe5BnNPqh2MDEEjTFq9w0QwV4TaZEFjZWqOeKtz94keYkPTafY2xQ= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1732302401; c=relaxed/simple; bh=smqcDqYeS3aWaSl+7HeQYJLFS3NBCizj4BCojY+Yc4A=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=bTDKaxvzRzi+dH0dCgn34vQHgr/VUx+03oTC0fFWXZf4MAy9PJeQRrlOzv2FGMJl666dlB8ECz7wYNQzPA9sPKS4bpcsPQVQtQDviu/qxay8NLNgEfxSiE/NDqGVtUlCRjuXXD9sZjJ7cWYdPCBHSnakfN35tE10+x0XfZAnjWM= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.ibm.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.ibm.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=ibm.com header.i=@ibm.com header.b=YmxlO23y; arc=none smtp.client-ip=148.163.156.1 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.ibm.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.ibm.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=ibm.com header.i=@ibm.com header.b="YmxlO23y" Received: from pps.filterd (m0356517.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.18.1.2/8.18.1.2) with ESMTP id 4AMCULEq006924; Fri, 22 Nov 2024 19:06:31 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ibm.com; h=cc :content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to; s=pp1; bh=YLjn+E kG3+7vNTtaL6tID/nmdk8/GXbod292sxdBk78=; b=YmxlO23yr+P+hKr7ZNnHbZ m6ekkLPJJaoAPcGfyV3v1ST7mWXaTVyIgDxurnLpTDe3e0rRfwEm2XROSO58QVX+ YPD01VkibeQoINuXGG1O6L9uPkZCmY7tF21cRr4h4N1N7KaAm7FMymOpTY+ewvOn XkfY2o8d/AaoFeIQY08KKNH5wGIArEJzH+l8Ew2/Be0kgmjdCBtLRFHTiJ5pWzfD Okj4bOdW5tD2xRy7aOz+nlbEOMDOsy8QuuV3C76i2fQvRLiHjR/Jw0K9NOA6NIgi zV0kdrIwnL87LQDVNvw1WZYJP9DKo7L5Oyar0uamHjYWZxt8tMadnp90znUg00wQ == Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 42xyu29ynv-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 22 Nov 2024 19:06:31 +0000 (GMT) Received: from m0356517.ppops.net (m0356517.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.18.0.8/8.18.0.8) with ESMTP id 4AMJ50mx004667; Fri, 22 Nov 2024 19:06:30 GMT Received: from ppma13.dal12v.mail.ibm.com (dd.9e.1632.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [50.22.158.221]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 42xyu29ynt-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 22 Nov 2024 19:06:30 +0000 (GMT) Received: from pps.filterd (ppma13.dal12v.mail.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma13.dal12v.mail.ibm.com (8.18.1.2/8.18.1.2) with ESMTP id 4AMIv3v8011836; Fri, 22 Nov 2024 19:06:29 GMT Received: from smtprelay04.fra02v.mail.ibm.com ([9.218.2.228]) by ppma13.dal12v.mail.ibm.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 42y7xjupgb-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 22 Nov 2024 19:06:29 +0000 Received: from smtpav06.fra02v.mail.ibm.com (smtpav06.fra02v.mail.ibm.com [10.20.54.105]) by smtprelay04.fra02v.mail.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 4AMJ6SCd33620596 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 22 Nov 2024 19:06:28 GMT Received: from smtpav06.fra02v.mail.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3256020049; Fri, 22 Nov 2024 19:06:28 +0000 (GMT) Received: from smtpav06.fra02v.mail.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE89220040; Fri, 22 Nov 2024 19:06:26 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [9.39.17.149] (unknown [9.39.17.149]) by smtpav06.fra02v.mail.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Fri, 22 Nov 2024 19:06:26 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <5ed6c877-38ec-4dae-9911-0af0bfcd1f9e@linux.ibm.com> Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2024 00:36:26 +0530 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: fstests@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] common/rc: Add a new _require_scratch_extsize helper function Content-Language: en-US To: "Darrick J. Wong" Cc: Ritesh Harjani , fstests@vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, ojaswin@linux.ibm.com, zlang@kernel.org References: <4412cece5c3f2175fa076a3b29fe6d0bb4c43a6e.1732126365.git.nirjhar@linux.ibm.com> <87plmp81km.fsf@gmail.com> <52dce21e-9b34-4a3d-9f2c-86634cd10750@linux.ibm.com> <871pz4xvuu.fsf@gmail.com> <20241122160430.GZ9425@frogsfrogsfrogs> <7bf1c177-1213-4c35-80bc-620d02a441c2@linux.ibm.com> <20241122184426.GK1926309@frogsfrogsfrogs> From: Nirjhar Roy In-Reply-To: <20241122184426.GK1926309@frogsfrogsfrogs> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-GUID: wZiegQYZmP3MWdewqILQPtMdOHBNzGUw X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: A3B3f3aULv77JvujyxrE2WjEO1n3_fnr X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.293,Aquarius:18.0.1051,Hydra:6.0.680,FMLib:17.12.62.30 definitions=2024-10-15_01,2024-10-11_01,2024-09-30_01 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 malwarescore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 priorityscore=1501 suspectscore=0 impostorscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 mlxscore=0 clxscore=1015 phishscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.19.0-2409260000 definitions=main-2411220160 On 11/23/24 00:14, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > On Fri, Nov 22, 2024 at 11:37:17PM +0530, Nirjhar Roy wrote: >> On 11/22/24 21:34, Darrick J. Wong wrote: >>> On Fri, Nov 22, 2024 at 12:22:41AM +0530, Ritesh Harjani wrote: >>>> Nirjhar Roy writes: >>>> >>>>> On 11/21/24 13:23, Ritesh Harjani (IBM) wrote: >>>>>> Nirjhar Roy writes: >>>>>> >>>>>>> _require_scratch_extsize helper function will be used in the >>>>>>> the next patch to make the test run only on filesystems with >>>>>>> extsize support. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Reviewed-by: Ojaswin Mujoo >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Nirjhar Roy >>>>>>> --- >>>>>>> common/rc | 17 +++++++++++++++++ >>>>>>> 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> diff --git a/common/rc b/common/rc >>>>>>> index cccc98f5..995979e9 100644 >>>>>>> --- a/common/rc >>>>>>> +++ b/common/rc >>>>>>> @@ -48,6 +48,23 @@ _test_fsxattr_xflag() >>>>>>> grep -q "fsxattr.xflags.*\[.*$2.*\]" <($XFS_IO_PROG -c "stat -v" "$1") >>>>>>> } >>>>>>> +# This test requires extsize support on the filesystem >>>>>>> +_require_scratch_extsize() >>>>>>> +{ >>>>>>> + _require_scratch >>>>>> _require_xfs_io_command "extsize" >>>>>> >>>>>> ^^^ Don't we need this too? >>>>> Yes, good point. I will add this in the next revision. >>>>>>> + _scratch_mkfs > /dev/null >>>>>>> + _scratch_mount >>>>>>> + local filename=$SCRATCH_MNT/$RANDOM >>>>>>> + local blksz=$(_get_block_size $SCRATCH_MNT) >>>>>>> + local extsz=$(( blksz*2 )) >>>>>>> + local res=$($XFS_IO_PROG -c "open -f $filename" -c "extsize $extsz" \ >>>>>>> + -c "extsize") >>>>>>> + _scratch_unmount >>>>>>> + grep -q "\[$extsz\] $filename" <(echo $res) || \ >>>>>>> + _notrun "this test requires extsize support on the filesystem" >>>>>> Why grep when we can simply just check the return value of previous xfs_io command? >>>>> No, I don't think we can rely on the return value of xfs_io. For ex, >>>>> let's look at the following set of commands which are ran on an ext4 system: >>>>> >>>>> root@AMARPC: /mnt1/test$ xfs_io -V >>>>> xfs_io version 5.13.0 >>>>> root@AMARPC: /mnt1/test$ touch new >>>>> root@AMARPC: /mnt1/test$ xfs_io -c "extsize 8k"  new >>>>> foreign file active, extsize command is for XFS filesystems only >>>>> root@AMARPC: /mnt1/test$ echo "$?" >>>>> 0 >>>>> This incorrect return value might have been fixed in some later versions >>>>> of xfs_io but there are still versions where we can't solely rely on the >>>>> return value. >>>> Ok. That's bad, we then have to rely on grep. >>>> Sure, thanks for checking and confirming that. >>> You all should add CMD_FOREIGN_OK to the extsize command in xfs_io, >>> assuming that you've not already done that in your dev workspace. >>> >>> --D >> Yes, I have tested with that as well. I have applied the following patch to >> xfsprogs and tested with the modified xfs_io. >> >> diff --git a/io/open.c b/io/open.c >> index 15850b55..6407b7e8 100644 >> --- a/io/open.c >> +++ b/io/open.c >> @@ -980,7 +980,7 @@ open_init(void) >>         extsize_cmd.args = _("[-D | -R] [extsize]"); >>         extsize_cmd.argmin = 0; >>         extsize_cmd.argmax = -1; >> -       extsize_cmd.flags = CMD_NOMAP_OK; >> +       extsize_cmd.flags = CMD_NOMAP_OK | CMD_FOREIGN_OK; >>         extsize_cmd.oneline = >>                 _("get/set preferred extent size (in bytes) for the open >> file"); >>         extsize_cmd.help = extsize_help; >> >> The return values are similar. >> >> root@AMARPC: /mnt1/scratch$ touch new >> root@AMARPC: /mnt1/scratch$ /home/ubuntu/xfsprogs-dev/io/xfs_io -c "extsize >> 8k" new >> root@AMARPC: /mnt1/scratch$ echo "$?" >> 0 >> root@AMARPC: /mnt1/scratch$ /home/ubuntu/xfsprogs-dev/io/xfs_io -c "extsize" >> new >> [0] new >> >> This is the reason I am not relying on the return value, instead I am >> checking if only the extsize gets changed, we will assume that the extsize >> support is there, else the test will _notrun. >> >> Also, >> >> root@AMARPC: /mnt1/scratch$ strace -f /mnt1/scratch$ >> /home/ubuntu/xfsprogs-dev/io/xfs_io -c "extsize 16k" new >> >> ... >> >> ... >> >> ioctl(3, FS_IOC_FSGETXATTR, {fsx_xflags=0, fsx_extsize=0, fsx_nextents=0, >> fsx_projid=0, fsx_cowextsize=0}) = 0 >> ioctl(3, FS_IOC_FSSETXATTR, {fsx_xflags=FS_XFLAG_EXTSIZE, fsx_extsize=16384, >> fsx_projid=0, fsx_cowextsize=0}) = 0 >> exit_group(0) >> >> Looking at the existing code for ext4_fileattr_set(), We validate the flags >> but I think we silently don't validate(and ignore) the xflags. Like, we have >> >> int err = -EOPNOTSUPP; >> if (flags & ~EXT4_FL_USER_VISIBLE) >>         goto out; >> >> BUT we do NOT have something like >> >> int err = -EOPNOTSUPP; >> if (fa->fsx_flags & ~EXT4_VALID_XFLAGS) // where EXT4_VALID_XFLAGS should be >> an || of all the supported xflags in ext4. >>         goto out; >> >> I am not sure what other filesystems do, but if we check whether the extsize >> got changed, then we can correctly determine extsize support. >> >> Does that make sense? > You don't have to check fsx_flags if you don't use fileattr_fill_xflags. > ext4 doesn't use that. > > --D Okay got it. Thank you. How does the overall logic of the _require_scratch_extsize() look? > >> --NR >> >> >> >>>> -ritesh >>>> >> -- >> --- >> Nirjhar Roy >> Linux Kernel Developer >> IBM, Bangalore >> -- --- Nirjhar Roy Linux Kernel Developer IBM, Bangalore