From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp-out1.suse.de (smtp-out1.suse.de [195.135.223.130]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8661A1C0DCB; Tue, 27 Aug 2024 13:22:51 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=195.135.223.130 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1724764973; cv=none; b=kL77sNyVbds7NY7vbDoow8YgLee9/rWKdRTaVR1k88tjOrvj4+gG8uHdd6LbxGd0gdMk3O6n8baGiP02bWb+qQ7nULG4HNIevuNnYjGdZs83URYi8GqzDkVktWBFPX7WL1sO+Q303z5md33IrmW8ToBUCMVfnuPwxQDHeQ+C0os= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1724764973; c=relaxed/simple; bh=TZyuKoVS79f7ib0iEdxM6+RhIJdEe8AuyBrWQd4rr8g=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=jCbFFzYVJYYPXnycsF6QuB850+ImcxRXKW8Fr2MNy4uZYVl8Srq1YtRyzTbAIP9FSMQkuGl7uUP3B28V/jBKpf99rohhE7Q5asDA5802szyl4TEuVEMXfoqKdbiVdNLoAHMWqSnoZttZI8pftnlV0LvHK+CWpktO1rK6HhC4ELo= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=suse.cz; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=suse.cz; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=suse.cz header.i=@suse.cz header.b=P+35a51m; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=suse.cz header.i=@suse.cz header.b=dpDCVagK; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=suse.cz header.i=@suse.cz header.b=P+35a51m; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=suse.cz header.i=@suse.cz header.b=dpDCVagK; arc=none smtp.client-ip=195.135.223.130 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=suse.cz Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=suse.cz Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=suse.cz header.i=@suse.cz header.b="P+35a51m"; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=suse.cz header.i=@suse.cz header.b="dpDCVagK"; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=suse.cz header.i=@suse.cz header.b="P+35a51m"; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=suse.cz header.i=@suse.cz header.b="dpDCVagK" Received: from imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org (unknown [10.150.64.97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-out1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A0C3F21AF8; Tue, 27 Aug 2024 13:22:49 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_rsa; t=1724764969; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to: cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=7yAxwtgVLBdL+ij/BrepXXwnG1crQ8ixnLWnROohPRA=; b=P+35a51m7NJkJwZ5X3Gaqw5LQwtXdgtyc46Um7cH3QDQIYUoESMuDNgKJCeE4JL08Wv0WD 2PmaQ8uf7zng5DK5bHzzIfcbH9WRpffz+F6kOPmVX73RHJVyqDdAB9x8oUFlgN3wxpFR0G J2DIvXfzQqArhBNaHtvWM2p77J88Qjg= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1724764969; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to: cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=7yAxwtgVLBdL+ij/BrepXXwnG1crQ8ixnLWnROohPRA=; b=dpDCVagKgifdDrYydEQHxW3h4ufCNU6LgxhSWVf6pYg9OdGDYcJxpLkZxNsHLj23TX93/m 2ZdmNNtn6A7svrDQ== Authentication-Results: smtp-out1.suse.de; none DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_rsa; t=1724764969; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to: cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=7yAxwtgVLBdL+ij/BrepXXwnG1crQ8ixnLWnROohPRA=; b=P+35a51m7NJkJwZ5X3Gaqw5LQwtXdgtyc46Um7cH3QDQIYUoESMuDNgKJCeE4JL08Wv0WD 2PmaQ8uf7zng5DK5bHzzIfcbH9WRpffz+F6kOPmVX73RHJVyqDdAB9x8oUFlgN3wxpFR0G J2DIvXfzQqArhBNaHtvWM2p77J88Qjg= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1724764969; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to: cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=7yAxwtgVLBdL+ij/BrepXXwnG1crQ8ixnLWnROohPRA=; b=dpDCVagKgifdDrYydEQHxW3h4ufCNU6LgxhSWVf6pYg9OdGDYcJxpLkZxNsHLj23TX93/m 2ZdmNNtn6A7svrDQ== Received: from imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 48C4C13AD6; Tue, 27 Aug 2024 13:22:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dovecot-director2.suse.de ([2a07:de40:b281:106:10:150:64:167]) by imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org with ESMTPSA id SMZiDynTzWbrdQAAD6G6ig (envelope-from ); Tue, 27 Aug 2024 13:22:49 +0000 Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2024 15:22:42 +0200 From: Petr Vorel To: Martin Doucha Cc: NeilBrown , linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, Josef Bacik , stable@vger.kernel.org, Chuck Lever , ltp@lists.linux.it Subject: Re: [LTP] [PATCH v2 1/1] nfsstat01: Update client RPC calls for kernel 6.9 Message-ID: <20240827132242.GA1627011@pevik> Reply-To: Petr Vorel References: <> <20240823064640.GA1217451@pevik> <172445038410.6062.6091007925280806767@noble.neil.brown.name> <9afef16d-52b2-435d-902a-7ccfa5824968@suse.cz> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: stable@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <9afef16d-52b2-435d-902a-7ccfa5824968@suse.cz> X-Spam-Score: -7.50 X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-7.50 / 50.00]; REPLY(-4.00)[]; BAYES_HAM(-3.00)[100.00%]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000]; MID_RHS_NOT_FQDN(0.50)[]; HAS_REPLYTO(0.30)[pvorel@suse.cz]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.20)[-1.000]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; MISSING_XM_UA(0.00)[]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; DKIM_SIGNED(0.00)[suse.cz:s=susede2_rsa,suse.cz:s=susede2_ed25519]; FUZZY_BLOCKED(0.00)[rspamd.com]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_SEVEN(0.00)[7]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; REPLYTO_EQ_FROM(0.00)[] X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Level: Hi all, > On 23. 08. 24 23:59, NeilBrown wrote: > > On Fri, 23 Aug 2024, Petr Vorel wrote: > > > We discussed in v1 how to fix tests. Neil suggested to fix the test the way so > > > that it works on all kernels. As I note [1] > > > 1) either we give up on checking the new functionality still works (if we > > > fallback to old behavior) > > I don't understand. What exactly do you mean by "the new > > functionality". > > As I understand it there is no new functionality. All there was was and > > information leak between network namespaces, and we stopped the leak. > > Do you consider that to be new functionality? Thanks Martin for jumping in. I hoped I was clear, but obviously not. Following are the questions for kernel maintainers and developers. I put my opinion, but it's really up to you what you want to have tested. > The new functionality is that the patches add a new file to network > namespaces: /proc/net/rpc/nfs. This file did not exist outside the root > network namespace at least on some of the kernels where we still need to run > this test. So the question is: How aggressively do we want to enforce > backporting of these NFS patches into distros with older kernels? > We have 3 options how to fix the test depending on the answer: > 1) Don't enforce at all. We'll check whether /proc/net/rpc/nfs exists in the > client namespace and read it only if it does. Otherwise we'll fall back on > the global file. 1) is IMHO the worst case because it's not testing patch gets reverted. > 2) Enforce aggressively. We'll hardcode a minimal kernel version into the > test (e.g. v5.4) and if the procfile doesn't exist on any newer kernel, it's > a bug. I would prefer 2), which is the usual LTP approach (do not hide bugs, we even fail on upstream kernel WONTFIX [1], why we should refuse the policy here?). Whichever older LTS upstream kernel gets fixed would drive the line where new functionality is requested (currently v5.14, I suppose at least 5.10 will also be fixed). LTP also has a way to specify enterprise distro kernel version if older enterprise kernel also gets fixed (this should not be needed, but it'd be possible). > 3) Enforce on new kernels only. We'll set a hard requirement for kernel > v6.9+ as in option 2) and check for existence of the procfile on any older > kernels as in option 1). Due way to specify enterprise distro kernel version and upstream kernel testing expecting people update to the latest stable/LTS we should not worry much about people with older kernels. Kind regards, Petr [1] https://github.com/linux-test-project/ltp/blob/master/testcases/kernel/syscalls/ustat/ustat01.c#L48-L49