From: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com>
To: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Cc: fstests@vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org,
"Theodore Y . Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>,
Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org>,
Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>,
David Gstir <david@sigma-star.at>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] generic: test locking when setting encryption policy
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 15:41:06 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20161121234106.GH30672@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20161121213251.GL31101@dastard>
On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 08:32:51AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
>
> This means that reproducing the race condition is going to be
> machine dependent regardless of how the test is written.
>
> In cases like this for XFS, we tend towards adding a debug sysfs
> file to introduce a delay into the code that allows the race to be
> triggered reliably. The delay is only included in CONFIG_XFS_DEBUG=y
> builds, and the test is conditional on the sysfs file being present.
>
> e.g. xfs/051 uses a log recovery delay to allow us to reliably
> trigger IO errors in the middle of log recovery and hence exercise
> the IO error failure paths in the middle of recovery. This made an
> extremely unreliable reproducer into a test case that triggered
> reliably on every machine the test is run on....
>
> Can something like this be done in this case?
>
I'd really rather not do something like that just for this test, which is really
just testing that the kernel does inode_lock()/inode_unlock() in
fscrypt_process_policy(). It would be more worthwhile if the testing-only
kernel code would help expose many race conditions, not just this one particular
race in this particular ioctl.
So if you don't want to have the C version of this test in xfstests, I think it
should just be dropped from the series.
Eric
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-11-21 23:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-11-17 19:47 [PATCH 0/4] Add filesystem-level encryption tests Eric Biggers
2016-11-17 19:47 ` [PATCH 1/4] generic: add utilities for testing filesystem encryption Eric Biggers
2016-11-20 21:33 ` Dave Chinner
2016-11-21 18:40 ` Eric Biggers
2016-11-21 21:08 ` Dave Chinner
2016-11-17 19:47 ` [PATCH 2/4] generic: test setting and getting encryption policies Eric Biggers
2016-11-20 22:07 ` Dave Chinner
2016-11-21 19:11 ` Eric Biggers
2016-11-21 21:21 ` Dave Chinner
2016-11-17 19:47 ` [PATCH 3/4] generic: test encrypted file access Eric Biggers
2016-11-20 22:31 ` Dave Chinner
2016-11-21 19:23 ` Eric Biggers
2016-11-21 21:23 ` Dave Chinner
2016-11-17 19:47 ` [PATCH 4/4] generic: test locking when setting encryption policy Eric Biggers
2016-11-20 22:35 ` Dave Chinner
2016-11-21 19:25 ` Eric Biggers
2016-11-21 21:32 ` Dave Chinner
2016-11-21 23:41 ` Eric Biggers [this message]
2016-11-24 23:26 ` Dave Chinner
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=20161121234106.GH30672@google.com \
--to=ebiggers@google.com \
--cc=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=david@sigma-star.at \
--cc=fstests@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=jaegeuk@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=richard@nod.at \
--cc=tytso@mit.edu \
/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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.