From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-alma10-1.taild15c8.ts.net [100.103.45.18]) (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 897BA3914ED; Sat, 17 Oct 2026 04:05:52 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1792209953; cv=none; b=QCM0SpJMosvTicB27CeOPhVmHrRSIq8tsEhLyQnIXjUpC9rK05HjttoP7AeVcBUM91kFYckIYAYXrY08ytYNHRgz0aS0rZUvrp65OtNpESaYsb3jcekLhBv0BUo8oakOx/hYIZ98H1kkOSW7zNvkEl5+nJURpXr1qUJ0ccyB+Bc= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1792209953; c=relaxed/simple; bh=69crhIeeruaw8Qw0atksroR30WeIWYguZGzsRj5LTmo=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=PbsAQ78juXAch/uI1tvNT7YukSBlGqR5K5sJoc87597w4c7S7lviQuC18Va3iOnwTT1aBO1tVVEXoeKM8qIf+hFQufTFnP2ZDv0iEZAdCJngwZVuieHpAmn85mzrorlK1v9eb9QGyTBUaIbyZwM4wBn10ERwpsGZRWIVpLWoHvs= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=U48ntwjl; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="U48ntwjl" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id F35FE1F000C4; Sat, 17 Oct 2026 04:05:51 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1792209952; bh=nYIISnqN+wnw2FIi/PrsU2Hf3ONQzYIx6wG0iA4EVh0=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To; b=U48ntwjl7h057XfiRjftcXqJrvy89yMTsjyFZYmznlqviFj2ZrdPfXqMPJah8OyT1 4FFwDHFsuk452T3fL30piVxyxZaOkDPcQgX1lO8hud0JDXLkfraprL1dod/USGfifR emVnznBLRZmvAwAfN0rwCs0RgQ7lDYNVKVOdu06O4AXxh6G4AqCSpy7RQw0Xs/gsPS QGSNnLtx62JE5/6NaDPRoT0GHhfscxWv1KY1LjjWipXvjYoZLfYuHTSzFhXkFKCV09 U0c61FsARrU07zJVjcv+/RDsiwnSlK010Q7bmgFtnIllVsOhRExWoNqQKiasNkPUag CUP3gmfJ9Vu7Q== Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2026 21:05:50 -0700 From: Eric Biggers To: Qu Wenruo Cc: Qu Wenruo , linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, fstests@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] fstests: generic: add a test case to check fsverity reads Message-ID: <20261017040550.GB29318@sol> References: <20261011222613.10793-1-wqu@suse.com> <20261016074756.GD3049@sol> <20261016082422.GA1894@sol> <4cafa46b-2bdc-4a91-9f33-85d4cb5f9357@gmx.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <4cafa46b-2bdc-4a91-9f33-85d4cb5f9357@gmx.com> On Fri, Oct 16, 2026 at 07:24:32PM +1030, Qu Wenruo wrote: > > > 在 2026/10/16 18:54, Eric Biggers 写道: > > On Fri, Oct 16, 2026 at 06:35:05PM +1030, Qu Wenruo wrote: > > > > > > > > > 在 2026/10/16 18:17, Eric Biggers 写道: > > > > On Mon, Oct 12, 2026 at 08:56:13AM +1030, Qu Wenruo wrote: > > > > > +_fixed_by_fs_commit btrfs xxxxxxxxxxxx \ > > > > > + "btrfs: fix the fsverity callback where unexpected range is verified" > > > > > > > > Even without that commit, 'kvm-xfstests -c btrfs generic/807' still > > > > passes. Under what circumstances will this test fail? > > > > > > It need as least 7.2 upstream, which enables large data folios for btrfs by > > > default. > > > > > > And I can always reproduce it here, mind to provide more info about the > > > passed run? > > > > This is on the latest mainline (2f2f7eeef8b0). Not sure what else > > you're looking for. > > It can be racy, since the fsverity call is at endio time, if all the endio > of the same large folio is called after all the reads of the folio finished, > it can also pass the verification. > > But I don't think it's that possible, unless you have blazing fast storage. > As the first hole read should trigger the verification for the whole folio > and trigger an fsverity error immediately. > > I can enlarge the file size, or even git it a loop to run multiple times, > but I just can't figure out why... > > Or is it possible that the kernel config doesn't have > CONFIG_TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE? Indeed, I didn't have CONFIG_TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE enabled. Enabling it makes the test fail as expected. Maybe would be helpful to mention that prerequisite in a comment in the test. - Eric