xfs/097: Remove wrong broken assignment operation
diff mbox series

Message ID 1570432515-13184-1-git-send-email-xuyang2018.jy@cn.fujitsu.com
State New
Headers show
Series
  • xfs/097: Remove wrong broken assignment operation
Related show

Commit Message

Yang Xu Oct. 7, 2019, 7:15 a.m. UTC
On old kernel, since commit ded188b8609 ("xfs: Fix the situation that mount 
operation rejects corrupted XFS") running this case got the mismatched output,
as below:
-----------------------------------
 + check fs
 + corrupt image
 + mount image && modify files
-broken: 1
+broken: 0
 + repair fs
 + mount image (2)
------------------------------------

It fails because the broken is always equal to 0 when _try_scratch_mount
succeed. So remove this wrong assignment operation.

Signed-off-by: Yang Xu <xuyang2018.jy@cn.fujitsu.com>
---
 tests/xfs/097 | 2 --
 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)

Comments

Darrick J. Wong Oct. 7, 2019, 3:12 p.m. UTC | #1
On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 03:15:15PM +0800, Yang Xu wrote:
> On old kernel, since commit ded188b8609 ("xfs: Fix the situation that mount 
> operation rejects corrupted XFS") running this case got the mismatched output,
> as below:

But why did the output mismatch?  Did the fs heal itself?  Did
allocating 5 more files somehow avoid touching the finobt?  Is the
assignment logic in the loop broken?

--D

> -----------------------------------
>  + check fs
>  + corrupt image
>  + mount image && modify files
> -broken: 1
> +broken: 0
>  + repair fs
>  + mount image (2)
> ------------------------------------
> 
> It fails because the broken is always equal to 0 when _try_scratch_mount
> succeed. So remove this wrong assignment operation.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Yang Xu <xuyang2018.jy@cn.fujitsu.com>
> ---
>  tests/xfs/097 | 2 --
>  1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/tests/xfs/097 b/tests/xfs/097
> index 1cb7d69c..20791738 100755
> --- a/tests/xfs/097
> +++ b/tests/xfs/097
> @@ -81,8 +81,6 @@ done
>  echo "+ mount image && modify files"
>  broken=1
>  if _try_scratch_mount >> $seqres.full 2>&1; then
> -
> -	broken=0
>  	for x in `seq 65 70`; do
>  		touch "${TESTFILE}.${x}" 2> /dev/null && broken=0
>  	done
> -- 
> 2.18.1
> 
> 
>
Yang Xu Oct. 8, 2019, 2:39 a.m. UTC | #2
on 2019/10/07 23:12, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 03:15:15PM +0800, Yang Xu wrote:
>> On old kernel, since commit ded188b8609 ("xfs: Fix the situation that mount
>> operation rejects corrupted XFS") running this case got the mismatched output,
>> as below:
> 
> But why did the output mismatch?  Did the fs heal itself?  Did
> allocating 5 more files somehow avoid touching the finobt?  Is the
> assignment logic in the loop broken?

The output mismatch because on old kernel, we can mount the corrupted 
xfs and touch action will be refused. so broken is equal to 0.
The fs doesn't heal ifself.
allocating 5 more file will touch the finobt.

You can see this url
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/fs/xfs/xfstests-dev.git/commit/?id=ded188b86096e2845e59dedae6050c7f254a96b

eg xfs/087, they all delete "broken=0" before allocationg 5 more file. 
commit ded188b86 compatibled old kernel(permit mount and refuse touch) 
and new kernel(refuse mount) behavior on corrupted xfs.  Or, I 
misunderstand this case?
> 
> --D
> 
>> -----------------------------------
>>   + check fs
>>   + corrupt image
>>   + mount image && modify files
>> -broken: 1
>> +broken: 0
>>   + repair fs
>>   + mount image (2)
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> It fails because the broken is always equal to 0 when _try_scratch_mount
>> succeed. So remove this wrong assignment operation.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Yang Xu <xuyang2018.jy@cn.fujitsu.com>
>> ---
>>   tests/xfs/097 | 2 --
>>   1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/tests/xfs/097 b/tests/xfs/097
>> index 1cb7d69c..20791738 100755
>> --- a/tests/xfs/097
>> +++ b/tests/xfs/097
>> @@ -81,8 +81,6 @@ done
>>   echo "+ mount image && modify files"
>>   broken=1
>>   if _try_scratch_mount >> $seqres.full 2>&1; then
>> -
>> -	broken=0
>>   	for x in `seq 65 70`; do
>>   		touch "${TESTFILE}.${x}" 2> /dev/null && broken=0
>>   	done
>> -- 
>> 2.18.1
>>
>>
>>
> 
>
Darrick J. Wong Oct. 14, 2019, 4:39 p.m. UTC | #3
On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 10:39:59AM +0800, Yang Xu wrote:
> 
> 
> on 2019/10/07 23:12, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 03:15:15PM +0800, Yang Xu wrote:
> > > On old kernel, since commit ded188b8609 ("xfs: Fix the situation that mount
> > > operation rejects corrupted XFS") running this case got the mismatched output,
> > > as below:
> > 
> > But why did the output mismatch?  Did the fs heal itself?  Did
> > allocating 5 more files somehow avoid touching the finobt?  Is the
> > assignment logic in the loop broken?
> 
> The output mismatch because on old kernel, we can mount the corrupted xfs
> and touch action will be refused. so broken is equal to 0.
> The fs doesn't heal ifself.
> allocating 5 more file will touch the finobt.
> 
> You can see this url
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/fs/xfs/xfstests-dev.git/commit/?id=ded188b86096e2845e59dedae6050c7f254a96b
> 
> eg xfs/087, they all delete "broken=0" before allocationg 5 more file.
> commit ded188b86 compatibled old kernel(permit mount and refuse touch) and
> new kernel(refuse mount) behavior on corrupted xfs.  Or, I misunderstand
> this case?

How old is the kernel?  At some point (4.10, I think?) we added a patch
to reserve metadata blocks for future free inode btree expansion.  That
required us to count the blocks in the finobt, at which point xfs/097's
behavior changed such that the fs doesn't mount after the test corrupts
the finobt.

--D

> > 
> > --D
> > 
> > > -----------------------------------
> > >   + check fs
> > >   + corrupt image
> > >   + mount image && modify files
> > > -broken: 1
> > > +broken: 0
> > >   + repair fs
> > >   + mount image (2)
> > > ------------------------------------
> > > 
> > > It fails because the broken is always equal to 0 when _try_scratch_mount
> > > succeed. So remove this wrong assignment operation.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Yang Xu <xuyang2018.jy@cn.fujitsu.com>
> > > ---
> > >   tests/xfs/097 | 2 --
> > >   1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/tests/xfs/097 b/tests/xfs/097
> > > index 1cb7d69c..20791738 100755
> > > --- a/tests/xfs/097
> > > +++ b/tests/xfs/097
> > > @@ -81,8 +81,6 @@ done
> > >   echo "+ mount image && modify files"
> > >   broken=1
> > >   if _try_scratch_mount >> $seqres.full 2>&1; then
> > > -
> > > -	broken=0
> > >   	for x in `seq 65 70`; do
> > >   		touch "${TESTFILE}.${x}" 2> /dev/null && broken=0
> > >   	done
> > > -- 
> > > 2.18.1
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> 
>
Yang Xu Oct. 15, 2019, 6:27 a.m. UTC | #4
on 2019/10/15 0:39, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 10:39:59AM +0800, Yang Xu wrote:
>>
>>
>> on 2019/10/07 23:12, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
>>> On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 03:15:15PM +0800, Yang Xu wrote:
>>>> On old kernel, since commit ded188b8609 ("xfs: Fix the situation that mount
>>>> operation rejects corrupted XFS") running this case got the mismatched output,
>>>> as below:
>>>
>>> But why did the output mismatch?  Did the fs heal itself?  Did
>>> allocating 5 more files somehow avoid touching the finobt?  Is the
>>> assignment logic in the loop broken?
>>
>> The output mismatch because on old kernel, we can mount the corrupted xfs
>> and touch action will be refused. so broken is equal to 0.
>> The fs doesn't heal ifself.
>> allocating 5 more file will touch the finobt.
>>
>> You can see this url
>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/fs/xfs/xfstests-dev.git/commit/?id=ded188b86096e2845e59dedae6050c7f254a96b
>>
>> eg xfs/087, they all delete "broken=0" before allocationg 5 more file.
>> commit ded188b86 compatibled old kernel(permit mount and refuse touch) and
>> new kernel(refuse mount) behavior on corrupted xfs.  Or, I misunderstand
>> this case?
> 
> How old is the kernel?  At some point (4.10, I think?) we added a patch
> to reserve metadata blocks for future free inode btree expansion.  That
> required us to count the blocks in the finobt, at which point xfs/097's
> behavior changed such that the fs doesn't mount after the test corrupts
> the finobt.
I test this case on kernel-3.10.0-1062.el7.x86_64.
I find the patch you said to reserve metadata blocks for future free 
inode btree expansion. This kernel doesn't backport this commit 
76d771b4 ("xfs: use per-AG reservations for the finobt"), so it permmits 
to mount.

I can understand your meaning. But from xfstests commit ded188b86, it 
looks like refuse touch or refuse mount is acceptable for xfstests.

Also, xfs/087 is a similar case but it sets broken=1 instead of broken 
=0.  Before this kernel commit 76d771b4, xfs/087(xfs/097) permits mount 
and refuse touch, after this commit, xfs/087(xfs/097) refuses mount.
I think we should keep xfs/097 consistent with xfs/087. What do you 
think about it?

ps:my patch is intend to fix the inconsistent of broken assignment 
operation that xfstests commit ded188b86 introduced.

Thanks
Yang Xu

> 
> --D
> 
>>>
>>> --D
>>>
>>>> -----------------------------------
>>>>    + check fs
>>>>    + corrupt image
>>>>    + mount image && modify files
>>>> -broken: 1
>>>> +broken: 0
>>>>    + repair fs
>>>>    + mount image (2)
>>>> ------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> It fails because the broken is always equal to 0 when _try_scratch_mount
>>>> succeed. So remove this wrong assignment operation.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Yang Xu <xuyang2018.jy@cn.fujitsu.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>    tests/xfs/097 | 2 --
>>>>    1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/tests/xfs/097 b/tests/xfs/097
>>>> index 1cb7d69c..20791738 100755
>>>> --- a/tests/xfs/097
>>>> +++ b/tests/xfs/097
>>>> @@ -81,8 +81,6 @@ done
>>>>    echo "+ mount image && modify files"
>>>>    broken=1
>>>>    if _try_scratch_mount >> $seqres.full 2>&1; then
>>>> -
>>>> -	broken=0
>>>>    	for x in `seq 65 70`; do
>>>>    		touch "${TESTFILE}.${x}" 2> /dev/null && broken=0
>>>>    	done
>>>> -- 
>>>> 2.18.1
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
> 
>
Yang Xu Oct. 21, 2019, 12:09 p.m. UTC | #5
on 2019/10/15 14:27, Yang Xu wrote:
> 
> 
> on 2019/10/15 0:39, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 10:39:59AM +0800, Yang Xu wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> on 2019/10/07 23:12, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 03:15:15PM +0800, Yang Xu wrote:
>>>>> On old kernel, since commit ded188b8609 ("xfs: Fix the situation 
>>>>> that mount
>>>>> operation rejects corrupted XFS") running this case got the 
>>>>> mismatched output,
>>>>> as below:
>>>>
>>>> But why did the output mismatch?  Did the fs heal itself?  Did
>>>> allocating 5 more files somehow avoid touching the finobt?  Is the
>>>> assignment logic in the loop broken?
>>>
>>> The output mismatch because on old kernel, we can mount the corrupted 
>>> xfs
>>> and touch action will be refused. so broken is equal to 0.
>>> The fs doesn't heal ifself.
>>> allocating 5 more file will touch the finobt.
>>>
>>> You can see this url
>>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/fs/xfs/xfstests-dev.git/commit/?id=ded188b86096e2845e59dedae6050c7f254a96b 
>>>
>>>
>>> eg xfs/087, they all delete "broken=0" before allocationg 5 more file.
>>> commit ded188b86 compatibled old kernel(permit mount and refuse 
>>> touch) and
>>> new kernel(refuse mount) behavior on corrupted xfs.  Or, I misunderstand
>>> this case?
>>
>> How old is the kernel?  At some point (4.10, I think?) we added a patch
>> to reserve metadata blocks for future free inode btree expansion.  That
>> required us to count the blocks in the finobt, at which point xfs/097's
>> behavior changed such that the fs doesn't mount after the test corrupts
>> the finobt.
> I test this case on kernel-3.10.0-1062.el7.x86_64.
> I find the patch you said to reserve metadata blocks for future free 
> inode btree expansion. This kernel doesn't backport this commit 76d771b4 
> ("xfs: use per-AG reservations for the finobt"), so it permmits to mount.
> 
> I can understand your meaning. But from xfstests commit ded188b86, it 
> looks like refuse touch or refuse mount is acceptable for xfstests.
> 
> Also, xfs/087 is a similar case but it sets broken=1 instead of broken 
> =0.  Before this kernel commit 76d771b4, xfs/087(xfs/097) permits mount 
> and refuse touch, after this commit, xfs/087(xfs/097) refuses mount.
> I think we should keep xfs/097 consistent with xfs/087. What do you 
> think about it?
> 
> ps:my patch is intend to fix the inconsistent of broken assignment 
> operation that xfstests commit ded188b86 introduced.
Hi Darrick
   Do you have some questions on this patch?

Hi Eryu
    What do you think about this patch(I only want to keep xfs/097 
consistent with xfs/087).
> 
> Thanks
> Yang Xu
> 
>>
>> --D
>>
>>>>
>>>> --D
>>>>
>>>>> -----------------------------------
>>>>>    + check fs
>>>>>    + corrupt image
>>>>>    + mount image && modify files
>>>>> -broken: 1
>>>>> +broken: 0
>>>>>    + repair fs
>>>>>    + mount image (2)
>>>>> ------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>> It fails because the broken is always equal to 0 when 
>>>>> _try_scratch_mount
>>>>> succeed. So remove this wrong assignment operation.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Yang Xu <xuyang2018.jy@cn.fujitsu.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>    tests/xfs/097 | 2 --
>>>>>    1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/tests/xfs/097 b/tests/xfs/097
>>>>> index 1cb7d69c..20791738 100755
>>>>> --- a/tests/xfs/097
>>>>> +++ b/tests/xfs/097
>>>>> @@ -81,8 +81,6 @@ done
>>>>>    echo "+ mount image && modify files"
>>>>>    broken=1
>>>>>    if _try_scratch_mount >> $seqres.full 2>&1; then
>>>>> -
>>>>> -    broken=0
>>>>>        for x in `seq 65 70`; do
>>>>>            touch "${TESTFILE}.${x}" 2> /dev/null && broken=0
>>>>>        done
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> 2.18.1
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
> 
>
Darrick J. Wong Oct. 21, 2019, 3:50 p.m. UTC | #6
On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 08:09:39PM +0800, Yang Xu wrote:
> 
> 
>  on 2019/10/15 14:27, Yang Xu wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > on 2019/10/15 0:39, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > > On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 10:39:59AM +0800, Yang Xu wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > on 2019/10/07 23:12, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 03:15:15PM +0800, Yang Xu wrote:
> > > > > > On old kernel, since commit ded188b8609 ("xfs: Fix the
> > > > > > situation that mount
> > > > > > operation rejects corrupted XFS") running this case got
> > > > > > the mismatched output,
> > > > > > as below:
> > > > > 
> > > > > But why did the output mismatch?  Did the fs heal itself?  Did
> > > > > allocating 5 more files somehow avoid touching the finobt?  Is the
> > > > > assignment logic in the loop broken?
> > > > 
> > > > The output mismatch because on old kernel, we can mount the
> > > > corrupted xfs
> > > > and touch action will be refused. so broken is equal to 0.
> > > > The fs doesn't heal ifself.
> > > > allocating 5 more file will touch the finobt.
> > > > 
> > > > You can see this url
> > > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/fs/xfs/xfstests-dev.git/commit/?id=ded188b86096e2845e59dedae6050c7f254a96b
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > eg xfs/087, they all delete "broken=0" before allocationg 5 more file.
> > > > commit ded188b86 compatibled old kernel(permit mount and refuse
> > > > touch) and
> > > > new kernel(refuse mount) behavior on corrupted xfs.  Or, I misunderstand
> > > > this case?
> > > 
> > > How old is the kernel?  At some point (4.10, I think?) we added a patch
> > > to reserve metadata blocks for future free inode btree expansion.  That
> > > required us to count the blocks in the finobt, at which point xfs/097's
> > > behavior changed such that the fs doesn't mount after the test corrupts
> > > the finobt.
> > I test this case on kernel-3.10.0-1062.el7.x86_64.
> > I find the patch you said to reserve metadata blocks for future free
> > inode btree expansion. This kernel doesn't backport this commit 76d771b4
> > ("xfs: use per-AG reservations for the finobt"), so it permmits to
> > mount.
> > 
> > I can understand your meaning. But from xfstests commit ded188b86, it
> > looks like refuse touch or refuse mount is acceptable for xfstests.
> > 
> > Also, xfs/087 is a similar case but it sets broken=1 instead of broken
> > =0.  Before this kernel commit 76d771b4, xfs/087(xfs/097) permits mount
> > and refuse touch, after this commit, xfs/087(xfs/097) refuses mount.
> > I think we should keep xfs/097 consistent with xfs/087. What do you
> > think about it?
> > 
> > ps:my patch is intend to fix the inconsistent of broken assignment
> > operation that xfstests commit ded188b86 introduced.
> Hi Darrick
>   Do you have some questions on this patch?

Does it still pass on upstreeam 5.4?

--D

> Hi Eryu
>    What do you think about this patch(I only want to keep xfs/097 consistent
> with xfs/087).
> > 
> > Thanks
> > Yang Xu
> > 
> > > 
> > > --D
> > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > --D
> > > > > 
> > > > > > -----------------------------------
> > > > > >    + check fs
> > > > > >    + corrupt image
> > > > > >    + mount image && modify files
> > > > > > -broken: 1
> > > > > > +broken: 0
> > > > > >    + repair fs
> > > > > >    + mount image (2)
> > > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > It fails because the broken is always equal to 0 when
> > > > > > _try_scratch_mount
> > > > > > succeed. So remove this wrong assignment operation.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Yang Xu <xuyang2018.jy@cn.fujitsu.com>
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > >    tests/xfs/097 | 2 --
> > > > > >    1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > diff --git a/tests/xfs/097 b/tests/xfs/097
> > > > > > index 1cb7d69c..20791738 100755
> > > > > > --- a/tests/xfs/097
> > > > > > +++ b/tests/xfs/097
> > > > > > @@ -81,8 +81,6 @@ done
> > > > > >    echo "+ mount image && modify files"
> > > > > >    broken=1
> > > > > >    if _try_scratch_mount >> $seqres.full 2>&1; then
> > > > > > -
> > > > > > -    broken=0
> > > > > >        for x in `seq 65 70`; do
> > > > > >            touch "${TESTFILE}.${x}" 2> /dev/null && broken=0
> > > > > >        done
> > > > > > -- 
> > > > > > 2.18.1
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> 
>
Yang Xu Oct. 22, 2019, 1:49 a.m. UTC | #7
on 2019/10/21 23:50, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 08:09:39PM +0800, Yang Xu wrote:
>>
>>
>>   on 2019/10/15 14:27, Yang Xu wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> on 2019/10/15 0:39, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 10:39:59AM +0800, Yang Xu wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> on 2019/10/07 23:12, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 03:15:15PM +0800, Yang Xu wrote:
>>>>>>> On old kernel, since commit ded188b8609 ("xfs: Fix the
>>>>>>> situation that mount
>>>>>>> operation rejects corrupted XFS") running this case got
>>>>>>> the mismatched output,
>>>>>>> as below:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But why did the output mismatch?  Did the fs heal itself?  Did
>>>>>> allocating 5 more files somehow avoid touching the finobt?  Is the
>>>>>> assignment logic in the loop broken?
>>>>>
>>>>> The output mismatch because on old kernel, we can mount the
>>>>> corrupted xfs
>>>>> and touch action will be refused. so broken is equal to 0.
>>>>> The fs doesn't heal ifself.
>>>>> allocating 5 more file will touch the finobt.
>>>>>
>>>>> You can see this url
>>>>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/fs/xfs/xfstests-dev.git/commit/?id=ded188b86096e2845e59dedae6050c7f254a96b
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> eg xfs/087, they all delete "broken=0" before allocationg 5 more file.
>>>>> commit ded188b86 compatibled old kernel(permit mount and refuse
>>>>> touch) and
>>>>> new kernel(refuse mount) behavior on corrupted xfs.  Or, I misunderstand
>>>>> this case?
>>>>
>>>> How old is the kernel?  At some point (4.10, I think?) we added a patch
>>>> to reserve metadata blocks for future free inode btree expansion.  That
>>>> required us to count the blocks in the finobt, at which point xfs/097's
>>>> behavior changed such that the fs doesn't mount after the test corrupts
>>>> the finobt.
>>> I test this case on kernel-3.10.0-1062.el7.x86_64.
>>> I find the patch you said to reserve metadata blocks for future free
>>> inode btree expansion. This kernel doesn't backport this commit 76d771b4
>>> ("xfs: use per-AG reservations for the finobt"), so it permmits to
>>> mount.
>>>
>>> I can understand your meaning. But from xfstests commit ded188b86, it
>>> looks like refuse touch or refuse mount is acceptable for xfstests.
>>>
>>> Also, xfs/087 is a similar case but it sets broken=1 instead of broken
>>> =0.  Before this kernel commit 76d771b4, xfs/087(xfs/097) permits mount
>>> and refuse touch, after this commit, xfs/087(xfs/097) refuses mount.
>>> I think we should keep xfs/097 consistent with xfs/087. What do you
>>> think about it?
>>>
>>> ps:my patch is intend to fix the inconsistent of broken assignment
>>> operation that xfstests commit ded188b86 introduced.
>> Hi Darrick
>>    Do you have some questions on this patch?
> 
> Does it still pass on upstreeam 5.4?

Of course. It still can pass on upstream 5.4.

--------------------------------------
echo "+ mount image && modify files"
broken=1
//on kernel with commit d771b4 ("xfs: use per-AG reservations for the 
//finobt", it will not run into this if judgement, so broken=1.
//on kernel without this kernel commit, it will run into this if 
//judgement and touch will be refused, so broken is still equal to 1.
if _try_scratch_mount >> $seqres.full 2>&1; then
         for x in `seq 65 70`; do
                 touch "${TESTFILE}.${x}" 2> /dev/null && broken=0
         done
         umount "${SCRATCH_MNT}"
fi
--------------------------------------

> 
> --D
> 
>> Hi Eryu
>>     What do you think about this patch(I only want to keep xfs/097 consistent
>> with xfs/087).
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Yang Xu
>>>
>>>>
>>>> --D
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --D
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -----------------------------------
>>>>>>>     + check fs
>>>>>>>     + corrupt image
>>>>>>>     + mount image && modify files
>>>>>>> -broken: 1
>>>>>>> +broken: 0
>>>>>>>     + repair fs
>>>>>>>     + mount image (2)
>>>>>>> ------------------------------------
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It fails because the broken is always equal to 0 when
>>>>>>> _try_scratch_mount
>>>>>>> succeed. So remove this wrong assignment operation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Yang Xu <xuyang2018.jy@cn.fujitsu.com>
>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>     tests/xfs/097 | 2 --
>>>>>>>     1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> diff --git a/tests/xfs/097 b/tests/xfs/097
>>>>>>> index 1cb7d69c..20791738 100755
>>>>>>> --- a/tests/xfs/097
>>>>>>> +++ b/tests/xfs/097
>>>>>>> @@ -81,8 +81,6 @@ done
>>>>>>>     echo "+ mount image && modify files"
>>>>>>>     broken=1
>>>>>>>     if _try_scratch_mount >> $seqres.full 2>&1; then
>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>> -    broken=0
>>>>>>>         for x in `seq 65 70`; do
>>>>>>>             touch "${TESTFILE}.${x}" 2> /dev/null && broken=0
>>>>>>>         done
>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>> 2.18.1
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
> 
>
Darrick J. Wong Oct. 22, 2019, 1:55 a.m. UTC | #8
On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 09:49:48AM +0800, Yang Xu wrote:
> 
> 
> on 2019/10/21 23:50, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 08:09:39PM +0800, Yang Xu wrote:
> > > 
> > > 
> > >   on 2019/10/15 14:27, Yang Xu wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > on 2019/10/15 0:39, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 10:39:59AM +0800, Yang Xu wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > on 2019/10/07 23:12, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 03:15:15PM +0800, Yang Xu wrote:
> > > > > > > > On old kernel, since commit ded188b8609 ("xfs: Fix the
> > > > > > > > situation that mount
> > > > > > > > operation rejects corrupted XFS") running this case got
> > > > > > > > the mismatched output,
> > > > > > > > as below:
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > But why did the output mismatch?  Did the fs heal itself?  Did
> > > > > > > allocating 5 more files somehow avoid touching the finobt?  Is the
> > > > > > > assignment logic in the loop broken?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > The output mismatch because on old kernel, we can mount the
> > > > > > corrupted xfs
> > > > > > and touch action will be refused. so broken is equal to 0.
> > > > > > The fs doesn't heal ifself.
> > > > > > allocating 5 more file will touch the finobt.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > You can see this url
> > > > > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/fs/xfs/xfstests-dev.git/commit/?id=ded188b86096e2845e59dedae6050c7f254a96b
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > eg xfs/087, they all delete "broken=0" before allocationg 5 more file.
> > > > > > commit ded188b86 compatibled old kernel(permit mount and refuse
> > > > > > touch) and
> > > > > > new kernel(refuse mount) behavior on corrupted xfs.  Or, I misunderstand
> > > > > > this case?
> > > > > 
> > > > > How old is the kernel?  At some point (4.10, I think?) we added a patch
> > > > > to reserve metadata blocks for future free inode btree expansion.  That
> > > > > required us to count the blocks in the finobt, at which point xfs/097's
> > > > > behavior changed such that the fs doesn't mount after the test corrupts
> > > > > the finobt.
> > > > I test this case on kernel-3.10.0-1062.el7.x86_64.
> > > > I find the patch you said to reserve metadata blocks for future free
> > > > inode btree expansion. This kernel doesn't backport this commit 76d771b4
> > > > ("xfs: use per-AG reservations for the finobt"), so it permmits to
> > > > mount.
> > > > 
> > > > I can understand your meaning. But from xfstests commit ded188b86, it
> > > > looks like refuse touch or refuse mount is acceptable for xfstests.
> > > > 
> > > > Also, xfs/087 is a similar case but it sets broken=1 instead of broken
> > > > =0.  Before this kernel commit 76d771b4, xfs/087(xfs/097) permits mount
> > > > and refuse touch, after this commit, xfs/087(xfs/097) refuses mount.
> > > > I think we should keep xfs/097 consistent with xfs/087. What do you
> > > > think about it?
> > > > 
> > > > ps:my patch is intend to fix the inconsistent of broken assignment
> > > > operation that xfstests commit ded188b86 introduced.
> > > Hi Darrick
> > >    Do you have some questions on this patch?
> > 
> > Does it still pass on upstreeam 5.4?
> 
> Of course. It still can pass on upstream 5.4.
> 
> --------------------------------------
> echo "+ mount image && modify files"
> broken=1
> //on kernel with commit d771b4 ("xfs: use per-AG reservations for the
> //finobt", it will not run into this if judgement, so broken=1.
> //on kernel without this kernel commit, it will run into this if //judgement
> and touch will be refused, so broken is still equal to 1.
> if _try_scratch_mount >> $seqres.full 2>&1; then
>         for x in `seq 65 70`; do
>                 touch "${TESTFILE}.${x}" 2> /dev/null && broken=0
>         done
>         umount "${SCRATCH_MNT}"
> fi
> --------------------------------------

Ah, ok.  Looks good to me then.  Sorry I was a little slow on the
uptake. :/

Reviewed-by: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@oracle.com>

--D

> 
> > 
> > --D
> > 
> > > Hi Eryu
> > >     What do you think about this patch(I only want to keep xfs/097 consistent
> > > with xfs/087).
> > > > 
> > > > Thanks
> > > > Yang Xu
> > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > --D
> > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > --D
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > -----------------------------------
> > > > > > > >     + check fs
> > > > > > > >     + corrupt image
> > > > > > > >     + mount image && modify files
> > > > > > > > -broken: 1
> > > > > > > > +broken: 0
> > > > > > > >     + repair fs
> > > > > > > >     + mount image (2)
> > > > > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > It fails because the broken is always equal to 0 when
> > > > > > > > _try_scratch_mount
> > > > > > > > succeed. So remove this wrong assignment operation.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Yang Xu <xuyang2018.jy@cn.fujitsu.com>
> > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > >     tests/xfs/097 | 2 --
> > > > > > > >     1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > diff --git a/tests/xfs/097 b/tests/xfs/097
> > > > > > > > index 1cb7d69c..20791738 100755
> > > > > > > > --- a/tests/xfs/097
> > > > > > > > +++ b/tests/xfs/097
> > > > > > > > @@ -81,8 +81,6 @@ done
> > > > > > > >     echo "+ mount image && modify files"
> > > > > > > >     broken=1
> > > > > > > >     if _try_scratch_mount >> $seqres.full 2>&1; then
> > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > -    broken=0
> > > > > > > >         for x in `seq 65 70`; do
> > > > > > > >             touch "${TESTFILE}.${x}" 2> /dev/null && broken=0
> > > > > > > >         done
> > > > > > > > -- 
> > > > > > > > 2.18.1
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> 
>
Yang Xu Oct. 22, 2019, 2:06 a.m. UTC | #9
on 2019/10/22 9:55, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 09:49:48AM +0800, Yang Xu wrote:
>>
>>
>> on 2019/10/21 23:50, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
>>> On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 08:09:39PM +0800, Yang Xu wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>    on 2019/10/15 14:27, Yang Xu wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> on 2019/10/15 0:39, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 10:39:59AM +0800, Yang Xu wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> on 2019/10/07 23:12, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 03:15:15PM +0800, Yang Xu wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On old kernel, since commit ded188b8609 ("xfs: Fix the
>>>>>>>>> situation that mount
>>>>>>>>> operation rejects corrupted XFS") running this case got
>>>>>>>>> the mismatched output,
>>>>>>>>> as below:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But why did the output mismatch?  Did the fs heal itself?  Did
>>>>>>>> allocating 5 more files somehow avoid touching the finobt?  Is the
>>>>>>>> assignment logic in the loop broken?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The output mismatch because on old kernel, we can mount the
>>>>>>> corrupted xfs
>>>>>>> and touch action will be refused. so broken is equal to 0.
>>>>>>> The fs doesn't heal ifself.
>>>>>>> allocating 5 more file will touch the finobt.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You can see this url
>>>>>>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/fs/xfs/xfstests-dev.git/commit/?id=ded188b86096e2845e59dedae6050c7f254a96b
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> eg xfs/087, they all delete "broken=0" before allocationg 5 more file.
>>>>>>> commit ded188b86 compatibled old kernel(permit mount and refuse
>>>>>>> touch) and
>>>>>>> new kernel(refuse mount) behavior on corrupted xfs.  Or, I misunderstand
>>>>>>> this case?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How old is the kernel?  At some point (4.10, I think?) we added a patch
>>>>>> to reserve metadata blocks for future free inode btree expansion.  That
>>>>>> required us to count the blocks in the finobt, at which point xfs/097's
>>>>>> behavior changed such that the fs doesn't mount after the test corrupts
>>>>>> the finobt.
>>>>> I test this case on kernel-3.10.0-1062.el7.x86_64.
>>>>> I find the patch you said to reserve metadata blocks for future free
>>>>> inode btree expansion. This kernel doesn't backport this commit 76d771b4
>>>>> ("xfs: use per-AG reservations for the finobt"), so it permmits to
>>>>> mount.
>>>>>
>>>>> I can understand your meaning. But from xfstests commit ded188b86, it
>>>>> looks like refuse touch or refuse mount is acceptable for xfstests.
>>>>>
>>>>> Also, xfs/087 is a similar case but it sets broken=1 instead of broken
>>>>> =0.  Before this kernel commit 76d771b4, xfs/087(xfs/097) permits mount
>>>>> and refuse touch, after this commit, xfs/087(xfs/097) refuses mount.
>>>>> I think we should keep xfs/097 consistent with xfs/087. What do you
>>>>> think about it?
>>>>>
>>>>> ps:my patch is intend to fix the inconsistent of broken assignment
>>>>> operation that xfstests commit ded188b86 introduced.
>>>> Hi Darrick
>>>>     Do you have some questions on this patch?
>>>
>>> Does it still pass on upstreeam 5.4?
>>
>> Of course. It still can pass on upstream 5.4.
>>
>> --------------------------------------
>> echo "+ mount image && modify files"
>> broken=1
>> //on kernel with commit d771b4 ("xfs: use per-AG reservations for the
>> //finobt", it will not run into this if judgement, so broken=1.
>> //on kernel without this kernel commit, it will run into this if //judgement
>> and touch will be refused, so broken is still equal to 1.
>> if _try_scratch_mount >> $seqres.full 2>&1; then
>>          for x in `seq 65 70`; do
>>                  touch "${TESTFILE}.${x}" 2> /dev/null && broken=0
>>          done
>>          umount "${SCRATCH_MNT}"
>> fi
>> --------------------------------------
> 
> Ah, ok.  Looks good to me then.  Sorry I was a little slow on the
> uptake. :/
It doesn't matter. Thanks for your review.
> 
> Reviewed-by: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@oracle.com>
> 
> --D
> 
>>
>>>
>>> --D
>>>
>>>> Hi Eryu
>>>>      What do you think about this patch(I only want to keep xfs/097 consistent
>>>> with xfs/087).
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>> Yang Xu
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --D
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --D
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -----------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>      + check fs
>>>>>>>>>      + corrupt image
>>>>>>>>>      + mount image && modify files
>>>>>>>>> -broken: 1
>>>>>>>>> +broken: 0
>>>>>>>>>      + repair fs
>>>>>>>>>      + mount image (2)
>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It fails because the broken is always equal to 0 when
>>>>>>>>> _try_scratch_mount
>>>>>>>>> succeed. So remove this wrong assignment operation.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Yang Xu <xuyang2018.jy@cn.fujitsu.com>
>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>>      tests/xfs/097 | 2 --
>>>>>>>>>      1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/tests/xfs/097 b/tests/xfs/097
>>>>>>>>> index 1cb7d69c..20791738 100755
>>>>>>>>> --- a/tests/xfs/097
>>>>>>>>> +++ b/tests/xfs/097
>>>>>>>>> @@ -81,8 +81,6 @@ done
>>>>>>>>>      echo "+ mount image && modify files"
>>>>>>>>>      broken=1
>>>>>>>>>      if _try_scratch_mount >> $seqres.full 2>&1; then
>>>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>>> -    broken=0
>>>>>>>>>          for x in `seq 65 70`; do
>>>>>>>>>              touch "${TESTFILE}.${x}" 2> /dev/null && broken=0
>>>>>>>>>          done
>>>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>>>> 2.18.1
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
> 
>

Patch
diff mbox series

diff --git a/tests/xfs/097 b/tests/xfs/097
index 1cb7d69c..20791738 100755
--- a/tests/xfs/097
+++ b/tests/xfs/097
@@ -81,8 +81,6 @@  done
 echo "+ mount image && modify files"
 broken=1
 if _try_scratch_mount >> $seqres.full 2>&1; then
-
-	broken=0
 	for x in `seq 65 70`; do
 		touch "${TESTFILE}.${x}" 2> /dev/null && broken=0
 	done