Re: [LTP] LTP: syscalls: regression on mainline - ioctl_loop01 mknod07 setns01

From: Martijn Coenen
Date: Fri Jun 05 2020 - 07:31:56 EST

Next message: Qais Yousef: "Re: [PATCH 1/2] sched/uclamp: Add a new sysctl to control RT default boost value"
Previous message: Rafael J. Wysocki: "Re: [PATCH] acpi: battery: Always read fresh battery state on update"
In reply to: Yang Xu: "Re: [LTP] LTP: syscalls: regression on mainline - ioctl_loop01 mknod07 setns01"
Next in thread: Jan Stancek: "Re: LTP: syscalls: regression on mainline - ioctl_loop01 mknod07 setns01"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Hi Yang,

On Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 11:27 AM Yang Xu <xuyang2018.jy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> since ~LOOP_SET_STATUS_SETTABLE_FLAGS has been included in
> ~LOOP_SET_STATUS_CLEARABLE_FLAGS, do we still need the previous step?
> What do you think about it?

Yeah, I don't think we need the previous step with the current set of
flags, because clearable is a subset of settable. I will send a
follow-up patch some time next week.

Best,
Martijn

>
> Best Regards
> Yang Xu
>
> > Hey Yang,
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 10:59 AM Yang Xu <xuyang2018.jy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Martijn
> >>
> >> Sorry for noise. I see your patch in here[1] . I will modify
> >> ioctl_loop01 to test that LO_FLAGS_PARTSCAN can not clear and
> >> LO_FLAGS_AUTOCLEAR can be clear.
> >
> > Thanks, that would indeed be useful.
> >
> >>
> >> ps: Giving the url of patch is better so that other people doesn't need
> >> to investigate it again.
> >> [1]https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/11588321/
> >
> > Ok, will do next time!
> >
> > Best,
> > Martijn
> >>
> >> Best Regards
> >> Yang Xu
> >>> Hi Martijn
> >>>
> >>>> Hi Naresh,
> >>>>
> >>>> I just sent a patch and cc'd you. I verified all the loop tests pass
> >>>> again with that patch.
> >>> I think you want to say "without". I verified the ioctl_loop01 fails
> >>> with faf1d25440 ("loop: Clean up LOOP_SET_STATUS lo_flags handling").
> >>>
> >>> This kernel commit breaks old behaviour(if old flag all 0, new flag is
> >>> always 0 regradless your flag setting).
> >>>
> >>> I think we should modify code as below:
> >>> diff --git a/drivers/block/loop.c b/drivers/block/loop.c
> >>> index 13518ba191f5..c6ba8cf486ce 100644
> >>> --- a/drivers/block/loop.c
> >>> +++ b/drivers/block/loop.c
> >>> @@ -1364,11 +1364,9 @@ loop_set_status(struct loop_device *lo, const
> >>> struct loop_info64 *info)
> >>> if (err)
> >>> goto out_unfreeze;
> >>>
> >>> - /* Mask out flags that can't be set using LOOP_SET_STATUS. */
> >>> - lo->lo_flags &= ~LOOP_SET_STATUS_SETTABLE_FLAGS;
> >>> - /* For those flags, use the previous values instead */
> >>> - lo->lo_flags |= prev_lo_flags & ~LOOP_SET_STATUS_SETTABLE_FLAGS;
> >>> - /* For flags that can't be cleared, use previous values too */
> >>> + /* Mask out flags that can be set using LOOP_SET_STATUS. */
> >>> + lo->lo_flags &= LOOP_SET_STATUS_SETTABLE_FLAGS;
> >>> + /* For flags that can't be cleared, use previous values. */
> >>> lo->lo_flags |= prev_lo_flags &~LOOP_SET_STATUS_CLEARABLE_FLAGS;
> >>>
> >>> Best Regards
> >>> Yang Xu
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks,
> >>>> Martijn
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 9:10 PM Martijn Coenen <maco@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Hi Naresh,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I suspect the loop failures are due to
> >>>>> faf1d25440d6ad06d509dada4b6fe62fea844370 ("loop: Clean up
> >>>>> LOOP_SET_STATUS lo_flags handling"), I will investigate and get back
> >>>>> to you.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>> Martijn
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 7:19 PM Naresh Kamboju
> >>>>> <naresh.kamboju@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> + linux-block@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Thu, 4 Jun 2020 at 22:47, Naresh Kamboju
> >>>>>> <naresh.kamboju@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Following three test cases reported as regression on Linux mainline
> >>>>>>> kernel
> >>>>>>> on x86_64, arm64, arm and i386
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> ltp-syscalls-tests:
> >>>>>>> * ioctl_loop01
> >>>>>>> * mknod07
> >>>>>>> * setns01
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> git repo:
> >>>>>>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git
> >>>>>>> git branch: master
> >>>>>>> GOOD:
> >>>>>>> git commit: b23c4771ff62de8ca9b5e4a2d64491b2fb6f8f69
> >>>>>>> git describe: v5.7-1230-gb23c4771ff62
> >>>>>>> BAD:
> >>>>>>> git commit: 1ee08de1e234d95b5b4f866878b72fceb5372904
> >>>>>>> git describe: v5.7-3523-g1ee08de1e234
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> kernel-config:
> >>>>>>> https://builds.tuxbuild.com/U3bU0dMA62OVHb4DvZIVuw/kernel.config
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> We are investigating these failures.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> tst_test.c:906: CONF: btrfs driver not available
> >>>>>>> tst_test.c:1246: INFO: Timeout per run is 0h 15m 00s
> >>>>>>> tst_device.c:88: INFO: Found free device 1 '/dev/loop1'
> >>>>>>> ioctl_loop01.c:49: PASS: /sys/block/loop1/loop/partscan = 0
> >>>>>>> [ 1073.639677] loop_set_status: loop1 () has still dirty pages
> >>>>>>> (nrpages=1)
> >>>>>>> ioctl_loop01.c:50: PASS: /sys/block/loop1/loop/autoclear = 0
> >>>>>>> ioctl_loop01.c:51: PASS: /sys/block/loop1/loop/backing_file =
> >>>>>>> '/scratch/ltp-mnIdulzriQ/9cPtLQ/test.img'
> >>>>>>> ioctl_loop01.c:63: FAIL: expect 12 but got 17
> >>>>>>> ioctl_loop01.c:67: FAIL: /sys/block/loop1/loop/partscan != 1 got 0
> >>>>>>> ioctl_loop01.c:68: FAIL: /sys/block/loop1/loop/autoclear != 1 got 0
> >>>>>>> ioctl_loop01.c:79: FAIL: access /dev/loop1p1 fails
> >>>>>>> [ 1073.679678] loop_set_status: loop1 () has still dirty pages
> >>>>>>> (nrpages=1)
> >>>>>>> ioctl_loop01.c:85: FAIL: access /sys/block/loop1/loop1p1 fails
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> HINT: You _MAY_ be missing kernel fixes, see:
> >>>>>>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=10c70d95c0f2
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> mke2fs 1.43.8 (1-Jan-2018)
> >>>>>>> [ 1264.711379] EXT4-fs (loop0): mounting ext2 file system using the
> >>>>>>> ext4 subsystem
> >>>>>>> [ 1264.716642] EXT4-fs (loop0): mounted filesystem without journal.
> >>>>>>> Opts: (null)
> >>>>>>> mknod07 0 TINFO : Using test device LTP_DEV='/dev/loop0'
> >>>>>>> mknod07 0 TINFO : Formatting /dev/loop0 with ext2 opts=''
> >>>>>>> extra opts=''
> >>>>>>> mknod07 1 TPASS : mknod failed as expected:
> >>>>>>> TEST_ERRNO=EACCES(13): Permission denied
> >>>>>>> mknod07 2 TPASS : mknod failed as expected:
> >>>>>>> TEST_ERRNO=EACCES(13): Permission denied
> >>>>>>> mknod07 3 TFAIL : mknod07.c:155: mknod succeeded unexpectedly
> >>>>>>> mknod07 4 TPASS : mknod failed as expected:
> >>>>>>> TEST_ERRNO=EPERM(1): Operation not permitted
> >>>>>>> mknod07 5 TPASS : mknod failed as expected:
> >>>>>>> TEST_ERRNO=EROFS(30): Read-only file system
> >>>>>>> mknod07 6 TPASS : mknod failed as expected:
> >>>>>>> TEST_ERRNO=ELOOP(40): Too many levels of symbolic links
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> setns01 0 TINFO : ns_name=ipc, ns_fds[0]=6,
> >>>>>>> ns_types[0]=0x8000000
> >>>>>>> setns01 0 TINFO : ns_name=mnt, ns_fds[1]=7, ns_types[1]=0x20000
> >>>>>>> setns01 0 TINFO : ns_name=net, ns_fds[2]=8,
> >>>>>>> ns_types[2]=0x40000000
> >>>>>>> setns01 0 TINFO : ns_name=pid, ns_fds[3]=9,
> >>>>>>> ns_types[3]=0x20000000
> >>>>>>> setns01 0 TINFO : ns_name=uts, ns_fds[4]=10,
> >>>>>>> ns_types[4]=0x4000000
> >>>>>>> setns01 0 TINFO : setns(-1, 0x8000000)
> >>>>>>> setns01 1 TPASS : invalid fd exp_errno=9
> >>>>>>> setns01 0 TINFO : setns(-1, 0x20000)
> >>>>>>> setns01 2 TPASS : invalid fd exp_errno=9
> >>>>>>> setns01 0 TINFO : setns(-1, 0x40000000)
> >>>>>>> setns01 3 TPASS : invalid fd exp_errno=9
> >>>>>>> setns01 0 TINFO : setns(-1, 0x20000000)
> >>>>>>> setns01 4 TPASS : invalid fd exp_errno=9
> >>>>>>> setns01 0 TINFO : setns(-1, 0x4000000)
> >>>>>>> setns01 5 TPASS : invalid fd exp_errno=9
> >>>>>>> setns01 0 TINFO : setns(11, 0x8000000)
> >>>>>>> setns01 6 TFAIL : setns01.c:176: regular file fd exp_errno=22:
> >>>>>>> errno=EBADF(9): Bad file descriptor
> >>>>>>> setns01 0 TINFO : setns(11, 0x20000)
> >>>>>>> setns01 7 TFAIL : setns01.c:176: regular file fd exp_errno=22:
> >>>>>>> errno=EBADF(9): Bad file descriptor
> >>>>>>> setns01 0 TINFO : setns(11, 0x40000000)
> >>>>>>> setns01 8 TFAIL : setns01.c:176: regular file fd exp_errno=22:
> >>>>>>> errno=EBADF(9): Bad file descriptor
> >>>>>>> setns01 0 TINFO : setns(11, 0x20000000)
> >>>>>>> setns01 9 TFAIL : setns01.c:176: regular file fd exp_errno=22:
> >>>>>>> errno=EBADF(9): Bad file descriptor
> >>>>>>> setns01 0 TINFO : setns(11, 0x4000000)
> >>>>>>> setns01 10 TFAIL : setns01.c:176: regular file fd exp_errno=22:
> >>>>>>> errno=EBADF(9): Bad file descriptor
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Full test log link,
> >>>>>>> https://lkft.validation.linaro.org/scheduler/job/1467931#L8047
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> test results comparison shows this test case started failing from
> >>>>>>> June-2-2020
> >>>>>>> https://qa-reports.linaro.org/lkft/linux-mainline-oe/build/v5.7-4092-g38696e33e2bd/testrun/2779586/suite/ltp-syscalls-tests/test/ioctl_loop01/history/
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> https://qa-reports.linaro.org/lkft/linux-mainline-oe/build/v5.7-4092-g38696e33e2bd/testrun/2779586/suite/ltp-syscalls-tests/test/setns01/history/
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> https://qa-reports.linaro.org/lkft/linux-mainline-oe/build/v5.7-4092-g38696e33e2bd/testrun/2779586/suite/ltp-syscalls-tests/test/mknod07/history/
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>> Linaro LKFT
> >>>>>>> https://lkft.linaro.org
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>

Next message: Qais Yousef: "Re: [PATCH 1/2] sched/uclamp: Add a new sysctl to control RT default boost value"
Previous message: Rafael J. Wysocki: "Re: [PATCH] acpi: battery: Always read fresh battery state on update"
In reply to: Yang Xu: "Re: [LTP] LTP: syscalls: regression on mainline - ioctl_loop01 mknod07 setns01"
Next in thread: Jan Stancek: "Re: LTP: syscalls: regression on mainline - ioctl_loop01 mknod07 setns01"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]