Re: [PATCH] ceph/005: verify correct statfs behaviour with quotas

["Luís Henriques" <lhenriques@suse.de>]

David Disseldorp <ddiss@suse.de> writes:

> Hi Luís,
>
> It looks like this one is still in need of review...

Ah! Thanks for reminding me about it, David!

>
> On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 15:34:09 +0100, Luís Henriques wrote:
>
>> When using a directory with 'max_bytes' quota as a base for a mount,
>> statfs shall use that 'max_bytes' value as the total disk size.  That
>> value shall be used even when using subdirectory as base for the mount.
>> 
>> A bug was found where, when this subdirectory also had a 'max_files'
>> quota, the real filesystem size would be returned instead of the parent
>> 'max_bytes' quota value.  This test case verifies this bug is fixed.
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Luís Henriques <lhenriques@suse.de>
>> ---
>>  tests/ceph/005     | 40 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>  tests/ceph/005.out |  2 ++
>>  2 files changed, 42 insertions(+)
>>  create mode 100755 tests/ceph/005
>>  create mode 100644 tests/ceph/005.out
>> 
>> diff --git a/tests/ceph/005 b/tests/ceph/005
>> new file mode 100755
>> index 000000000000..0763a235a677
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/tests/ceph/005
>> @@ -0,0 +1,40 @@
>> +#! /bin/bash
>> +# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
>> +# Copyright (C) 2022 SUSE Linux Products GmbH. All Rights Reserved.
>> +#
>> +# FS QA Test 005
>> +#
>> +# Make sure statfs reports correct total size when:
>> +# 1. using a directory with 'max_byte' quota as base for a mount
>> +# 2. using a subdirectory of the above directory with 'max_files' quota
>> +#
>> +. ./common/preamble
>> +_begin_fstest auto quick quota
>> +
>> +_supported_fs generic
>> +_require_scratch
>> +
>> +_scratch_mount
>> +mkdir -p $SCRATCH_MNT/quota-dir/subdir
>> +
>> +# set quotas
>> +quota=$((1024*10000))
>> +$SETFATTR_PROG -n ceph.quota.max_bytes -v $quota $SCRATCH_MNT/quota-dir
>> +$SETFATTR_PROG -n ceph.quota.max_files -v $quota $SCRATCH_MNT/quota-dir/subdir
>> +_scratch_unmount
>> +
>> +SCRATCH_DEV=$SCRATCH_DEV/quota-dir _scratch_mount
>
> Aside from the standard please-quote-your-variables gripe, I'm a little

Sure, I'll fix those in next iteration.

> confused with the use of SCRATCH_DEV for this test. Network FSes where
> mkfs isn't provided don't generally use it. Is there any way that this
> could be run against TEST_DEV, or does the umount / mount complicate
> things too much?

When I looked at other tests doing similar things (i.e. changing the mount
device during the test), they all seemed to be using SCRATCH_DEV.  I guess
that I could change TEST_DEV instead.  I'll revisit this and see if that
works.

Anyway, regarding the usage of SCRATCH_DEV in cephfs, I've used several
different approaches:

- Use 2 different filesystems created on the same cluster,
- Use 2 volumes on the same filesystem, or
- Simply use 2 directories in the same filesystem.

I tend to use the later most of the times, as it's easier to setup :-)

Cheers,
-- 
Luís