Re: [PATCH v7 2/5] btrfs: test btrfs specific fsverity corruption

[Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org>]

On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 03:15:58PM -0700, Boris Burkov wrote:
> There are some btrfs specific fsverity scenarios that don't map
> neatly onto the tests in generic/574 like holes, inline extents,
> and preallocated extents. Cover those in a btrfs specific test.
> 
> This test relies on the btrfs implementation of fsverity in the patch:
> btrfs: initial fsverity support
> 
> and on btrfs-corrupt-block for corruption in the patches titled:
> btrfs-progs: corrupt generic item data with btrfs-corrupt-block
> btrfs-progs: expand corrupt_file_extent in btrfs-corrupt-block
> 
> Signed-off-by: Boris Burkov <boris@bur.io>
> ---
>  common/btrfs        |   5 ++
>  common/config       |   1 +
>  common/verity       |  14 ++++
>  tests/btrfs/290     | 168 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  tests/btrfs/290.out |  25 +++++++
>  5 files changed, 213 insertions(+)
>  create mode 100755 tests/btrfs/290
>  create mode 100644 tests/btrfs/290.out
> 
> diff --git a/common/btrfs b/common/btrfs
> index 670d9d1f..c3a7dc6e 100644
> --- a/common/btrfs
> +++ b/common/btrfs
> @@ -511,3 +511,8 @@ _btrfs_metadump()
>  	$BTRFS_IMAGE_PROG "$device" "$dumpfile"
>  	[ -n "$DUMP_COMPRESSOR" ] && $DUMP_COMPRESSOR -f "$dumpfile" &> /dev/null
>  }
> +
> +_require_btrfs_corrupt_block()
> +{
> +	_require_command "$BTRFS_CORRUPT_BLOCK_PROG" btrfs-corrupt-block
> +}
> diff --git a/common/config b/common/config
> index 479e50d1..67bdf912 100644
> --- a/common/config
> +++ b/common/config
> @@ -296,6 +296,7 @@ export BTRFS_UTIL_PROG=$(type -P btrfs)
>  export BTRFS_SHOW_SUPER_PROG=$(type -P btrfs-show-super)
>  export BTRFS_CONVERT_PROG=$(type -P btrfs-convert)
>  export BTRFS_TUNE_PROG=$(type -P btrfstune)
> +export BTRFS_CORRUPT_BLOCK_PROG=$(type -P btrfs-corrupt-block)
>  export XFS_FSR_PROG=$(type -P xfs_fsr)
>  export MKFS_NFS_PROG="false"
>  export MKFS_CIFS_PROG="false"
> diff --git a/common/verity b/common/verity
> index 1afe4a82..77766fca 100644
> --- a/common/verity
> +++ b/common/verity
> @@ -3,6 +3,8 @@
>  #
>  # Functions for setting up and testing fs-verity
>  
> +. common/btrfs
> +
>  _require_scratch_verity()
>  {
>  	_require_scratch
> @@ -48,6 +50,15 @@ _require_scratch_verity()
>  	FSV_BLOCK_SIZE=$(get_page_size)
>  }
>  
> +# Check for userspace tools needed to corrupt verity data or metadata.
> +_require_fsverity_corruption()
> +{
> +	_require_xfs_io_command "fiemap"
> +	if [ $FSTYP == "btrfs" ]; then
> +		_require_btrfs_corrupt_block
> +	fi
> +}

This is adding a second definition of _require_fsverity_corruption().
Probably a rebase error.

Also, is this hunk in the right patch?  This patch is for adding btrfs/290;
however, btrfs/290 doesn't use _require_fsverity_corruption() anymore.

> +
>  # Check for CONFIG_FS_VERITY_BUILTIN_SIGNATURES=y, as well as the userspace
>  # commands needed to generate certificates and add them to the kernel.
>  _require_fsverity_builtin_signatures()
> @@ -153,6 +164,9 @@ _scratch_mkfs_verity()
>  	ext4|f2fs)
>  		_scratch_mkfs -O verity
>  		;;
> +	btrfs)
> +		_scratch_mkfs
> +		;;

I think a good way to organize things would be to wire up the existing verity
tests for btrfs first, then to add the btrfs-specific tests at thet end of the
series.  That would mean the above hunk would go earlier in the series, not with
btrfs/290.  It's a little hard to review as-is, as the different hunks needed to
wire up the existing tests are mixed around in different patches.

- Eric