From: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org>
To: Lukas Czerner <lczerner@redhat.com>
Cc: fstests@vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [xfstests PATCH] ext4/053: fix the rejected mount option testing
Date: Mon, 9 May 2022 16:42:03 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Ynmmy+bWp0Q1/747@sol.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220430192130.131842-1-ebiggers@kernel.org>
On Sat, Apr 30, 2022 at 12:21:30PM -0700, Eric Biggers wrote:
> From: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com>
>
> 'not_mnt OPTIONS' seems to have been intended to test that the
> filesystem cannot be mounted at all with the given OPTIONS, meaning that
> the mount fails as opposed to the options being ignored. However, this
> doesn't actually work, as shown by the fact that the test case 'not_mnt
> test_dummy_encryption=v3' is passing in the !CONFIG_FS_ENCRYPTION case.
> Actually ext4 ignores this mount option when !CONFIG_FS_ENCRYPTION.
> (The ext4 behavior might be changed, but that is besides the point.)
>
> The problem is that the do_mnt() helper function is being misused in a
> context where a mount failure is expected, and it does some additional
> remount tests that don't make sense in that context. So if the mount
> unexpectedly succeeds, then one of these later tests can still "fail",
> causing the unexpected success to be shadowed by a later failure, which
> causes the overall test case to pass since it expects a failure.
>
> Fix this by reworking not_mnt() and not_remount_noumount() to use
> simple_mount() in cases where they are expecting a failure. Also fix
> up some of the naming and calling conventions to be less confusing.
> Finally, make sure to test that remounting fails too, not just mounting.
>
> Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com>
> ---
> tests/ext4/053 | 148 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------------
> 1 file changed, 78 insertions(+), 70 deletions(-)
Lukas, any thoughts on this patch? You're the author of this test.
- Eric
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-05-09 23:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-04-30 19:21 [xfstests PATCH] ext4/053: fix the rejected mount option testing Eric Biggers
2022-05-09 23:42 ` Eric Biggers [this message]
2022-05-10 9:43 ` Lukas Czerner
2022-05-10 15:43 ` Zorro Lang
2022-05-10 18:36 ` Eric Biggers
2022-05-11 6:25 ` Zorro Lang
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=Ynmmy+bWp0Q1/747@sol.localdomain \
--to=ebiggers@kernel.org \
--cc=fstests@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lczerner@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox