Re: group for tests that are dangerous for verifiers?

Dave Chinner
2013-06-23T23:44:33Z

On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 05:57:49PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> On 6/23/13 5:50 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 01:45:46PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> >> On 6/20/13 12:54 PM, Mark Tinguely wrote:
> >>> Do we need a xfstest verifier dangerous group?
> >>>
> >>> xfstest 111 purposely damages inodes. In hindsight it make sense
> >>> that it asserts when running with verifiers.
> >>
> >> But it only asserts on a debug kernel...
> >
> > Right, and it has done so for years - blaming verifiers for
> > triggering the assert failure is simply shooting the messenger.
>
> But this test *intentionally* corrupts, right? So it's prudent
> to not run a test which you *know* will explode if it runs
> as designed.

Common sense, really.

> >> This isn't the only place where corruption could ASSERT on debug;
> >> see xlog_recover_add_to_trans() for example.
> >>
> >> But if the test intentionally corrupts it and that leads to
> >> an ASSERT that does seem problematic for anyone testing w/ debug
> >> enabled.
> >
> > Yup, it runs src/itrash.c which corrupts every inode it can find.
> >
> > That's the reason this test is not part of the auto group - it's
> > a test that will cause the system to stop. We've got other tests
> > that are not part of the auto group for exactly the same reason -
> > they cause some kind of terminal failure and so aren't candidates
> > for regression testing.
>
> Then maybe just part of the normal dangerous group would be enough.

It will only run from the ioctl group today (bulkstat, I guess), so
I'd say that adding it to the dangerous group doesn't add any real
value except documentation. And it's just as easy to remove the
ASSERT() as it is really unnecessary....

> Except this isn't transient (today) - it's not a case where old kernels
> may oops, it's where it's *designed* to oops on this test, with a debug
> kernel.
>
> So I guess I could see a debug-dangerous group ;)
>
> >> I guess I'd vote for removing the ASSERT unless there's
> >> some reason it should be there - Dave?
> >
> > I'm fine with it being removed - we catch the failure just fine. If
> > that then makes 111 work as a regression test (i.e. doesn't trigger
> > the bad-inode bulkstat loop it was designed to test) then perhaps we
> > can consider making that part of the auto group, too...
>
> Removing it sounds like the best option then.

*nod*

Cheers,

Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com