Re: New glibc-testfail io/tst-copy_file_range with kernel-next.

Re: New glibc-testfail io/tst-copy_file_range with kernel-next.

[Amir Goldstein]

On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 4:57 PM Stefan Liebler <stli@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> as information, I had the chance to run the glibc-testsuite on a
> kernel-next from today on s390x and recognized a new failing test:
> io/tst-copy_file_range

Thanks for the detailed report!

[cc: linux-api and linux-fsdevel]

>
> It seems as the patches from Amir Golstein are changing the behaviour of
> copy_file_range. See two of the series:
> -"vfs: allow copy_file_range to copy across devices"
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git/commit/?id=5dae222a5ff0c269730393018a5539cc970a4726
> -"vfs: add missing checks to copy_file_range"
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git/commit/?id=96e6e8f4a68df2d94800311163faa67124df24e5
>
> A quick look into the verbose output (see attached file) shows at least
> the following changes:
>
> - writing at a position past the maximum allowed offset with "write"
> fails with EINVAL (22) whereas "copy_file_range" is now returning EFBIG
> (27). The test assumes that the same errno is set for "write" and
> "copy_file_range". (See <glibc>/io/tst-copy_file_range.c in
> delayed_write_failure_beginning() with current_size=1 or the second copy
> in delayed_write_failure_end())
> According to http://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man2/copy_file_range.2.html
> and http://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man2/write.2.html EFBIG seems to be
> the correct error.
> Should "write" also return EFBIG in those cases?

I'm not sure.
I think it makes sense for copy_file_range()  to behave very similarly to
"read"+"write" that is what I was aiming for. However, copy_file_range()
can be called with or without pos/offset. When called with offset, it would
be better to try and match its behavior with pread/pwrite. Note the EINVAL
case in http://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man2/pwritev.2.html
when offset+len overflows ssize_t.

Also, please see planned changes to copy_file_range() man page:
https://github.com/amir73il/man-pages/commit/ef24cb90797552eb0a2c55a1fb7f2c275e3b1bdb

>
> - For delayed_write_failure_beginning() with current_size>=2
> copy_file_range is started at a valid offset, but the length is beyond a
> valid range. copy_file_range is now copying the "valid" bytes and
> returning the number of copied bytes. The old behaviour was to return
> EINVAL without copying anything.
> In find_maximum_offset() a test sets maximum_offset_hard_limit to
> true/false depending on the behaviour of "write" in such a situation
> and the tests in delayed_write_failure_beginning() are assuming that
> "copy_file_range" behaves like "write".
> Should "write" perform the same partial copies as "copy_file_range" or
> how to determine the setting of maximum_offset_hard_limit?
>
> - In cross_device_failure it is assumed that copy_file_range always
> fails with EXDEV. Amirs patches are now allowing this case if possible.
> How could the testcase determine if the kernel supports cross device
> copies or not?
>
>

Florian's response:

> There's been a previous thread here:
>
>  <https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2019-06/msg00039.html>
>
> I can back out the emulation, as discussed, then there wouldn't be
> anything left to test in theory (although I think our tests caught one
> or two bugs in XFS backports downstream, that as before fstests covered
> copy_file_range).

I agree that sounds like the best option.

Thanks,
Amir.