Re: [LTP PATCH] inotify13: new test for fs/splice.c functions vs pipes vs inotify

From: Amir Goldstein
Date: Tue Jun 27 2023 - 14:32:12 EST

Next message: Ian Rogers: "Re: [PATCH] perf top & record: Fix segfault when default cycles event is not supported"
Previous message: Konrad Dybcio: "[PATCH v11 9/9] arm64: dts: qcom: msm8998: Configure CPRh"
In reply to: Ahelenia Ziemiańska: "[LTP PATCH] inotify13: new test for fs/splice.c functions vs pipes vs inotify"
Next in thread: Ahelenia Ziemiańska: "[LTP RFC PATCH v2] inotify13: new test for fs/splice.c functions vs pipes vs inotify"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Tue, Jun 27, 2023 at 7:57 PM Ahelenia Ziemiańska
<nabijaczleweli@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> The only one that passes on 6.1.27-1 is sendfile_file_to_pipe.
>
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/jbyihkyk5dtaohdwjyivambb2gffyjs3dodpofafnkkunxq7bu@jngkdxx65pux/t/#u
> Signed-off-by: Ahelenia Ziemiańska <nabijaczleweli@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> Formatted to clang-format defaults. Put the original Fixes:ed SHA in the
> metadata, that's probably fine, right?

No. The git commit is for the commits that fix the problem.
This can only be added after your fixes are merged.

I will let the LPT developers comment about style,
but I think LTP project wants tab indents.
I am personally unable to read this patch with so little indentation
and so much macroing.

>
> testcases/kernel/syscalls/inotify/.gitignore | 1 +
> testcases/kernel/syscalls/inotify/inotify13.c | 246 ++++++++++++++++++
> 2 files changed, 247 insertions(+)
> create mode 100644 testcases/kernel/syscalls/inotify/inotify13.c
>
> diff --git a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/inotify/.gitignore b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/inotify/.gitignore
> index f6e5c546a..b597ea63f 100644
> --- a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/inotify/.gitignore
> +++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/inotify/.gitignore
> @@ -10,3 +10,4 @@
> /inotify10
> /inotify11
> /inotify12
> +/inotify13
> diff --git a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/inotify/inotify13.c b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/inotify/inotify13.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000..c34f1dc9f
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/inotify/inotify13.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,246 @@
> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later
> +/*\
> + * Verify splice-family functions (and sendfile) generate IN_ACCESS
> + * for what they read and IN_MODIFY for what they write.
> + *
> + * Regression test for 983652c69199 and
> + * https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/jbyihkyk5dtaohdwjyivambb2gffyjs3dodpofafnkkunxq7bu@jngkdxx65pux/t/#u
> + */
> +
> +#define _GNU_SOURCE
> +#include "config.h"
> +
> +#include <stdio.h>
> +#include <unistd.h>
> +#include <stdlib.h>
> +#include <fcntl.h>
> +#include <stdbool.h>
> +#include <inttypes.h>
> +#include <signal.h>
> +#include <sys/mman.h>
> +#include <sys/sendfile.h>
> +
> +#include "tst_test.h"
> +#include "tst_safe_macros.h"
> +#include "inotify.h"
> +
> +#if defined(HAVE_SYS_INOTIFY_H)
> +#include <sys/inotify.h>
> +
> +
> +static int pipes[2] = {-1, -1};
> +static int inotify = -1;
> +static int memfd = -1;
> +static int data_pipes[2] = {-1, -1};
> +
> +static void watch_rw(int fd) {
> + char buf[64];
> + sprintf(buf, "/proc/self/fd/%d", fd);
> + SAFE_MYINOTIFY_ADD_WATCH(inotify, buf, IN_ACCESS | IN_MODIFY);
> +}
> +
> +static int compar(const void *l, const void *r) {
> + const struct inotify_event *lie = l;
> + const struct inotify_event *rie = r;
> + return lie->wd - rie->wd;
> +}
> +
> +static void get_events(size_t evcnt, struct inotify_event evs[static evcnt]) {
> + struct inotify_event tail, *itr = evs;
> + for (size_t left = evcnt; left; --left)
> + SAFE_READ(true, inotify, itr++, sizeof(struct inotify_event));
> +
> + TEST(read(inotify, &tail, sizeof(struct inotify_event)));
> + if (TST_RET != -1)
> + tst_brk(TFAIL, "expect %zu events", evcnt);
> + if (TST_ERR != EAGAIN)
> + tst_brk(TFAIL | TTERRNO, "expected EAGAIN");
> +
> + qsort(evs, evcnt, sizeof(struct inotify_event), compar);
> +}
> +
> +static void expect_event(struct inotify_event *ev, int wd, uint32_t mask) {
> + if (ev->wd != wd)
> + tst_brk(TFAIL, "expect event for wd %d got %d", wd, ev->wd);
> + if (ev->mask != mask)
> + tst_brk(TFAIL, "expect event with mask %" PRIu32 " got %" PRIu32 "", mask,
> + ev->mask);
> +}
> +
> +#define F2P(splice) \
> + SAFE_WRITE(SAFE_WRITE_RETRY, memfd, __func__, sizeof(__func__)); \
> + SAFE_LSEEK(memfd, 0, SEEK_SET); \
> + watch_rw(memfd); \
> + watch_rw(pipes[0]); \
> + TEST(splice); \
> + if (TST_RET == -1) \
> + tst_brk(TBROK | TERRNO, #splice); \
> + if (TST_RET != sizeof(__func__)) \
> + tst_brk(TBROK, #splice ": %" PRId64 "", TST_RET); \
> + \
> + /*expecting: IN_ACCESS memfd, IN_MODIFY pipes[0]*/ \
> + struct inotify_event events[2]; \
> + get_events(ARRAY_SIZE(events), events); \
> + expect_event(events + 0, 1, IN_ACCESS); \
> + expect_event(events + 1, 2, IN_MODIFY); \
> + \
> + char buf[sizeof(__func__)]; \
> + SAFE_READ(true, pipes[0], buf, sizeof(__func__)); \
> + if (memcmp(buf, __func__, sizeof(__func__))) \
> + tst_brk(TFAIL, "buf contents bad");
> +static void splice_file_to_pipe(void) {
> + F2P(splice(memfd, NULL, pipes[1], NULL, 128 * 1024 * 1024, 0));
> +}
> +static void sendfile_file_to_pipe(void) {
> + F2P(sendfile(pipes[1], memfd, NULL, 128 * 1024 * 1024));
> +}
> +
> +static void splice_pipe_to_file(void) {
> + SAFE_WRITE(SAFE_WRITE_RETRY, pipes[1], __func__, sizeof(__func__));
> + watch_rw(pipes[0]);
> + watch_rw(memfd);
> + TEST(splice(pipes[0], NULL, memfd, NULL, 128 * 1024 * 1024, 0));
> + if(TST_RET == -1)
> + tst_brk(TBROK | TERRNO, "splice");
> + if(TST_RET != sizeof(__func__))
> + tst_brk(TBROK, "splice: %" PRId64 "", TST_RET);
> +
> + // expecting: IN_ACCESS pipes[0], IN_MODIFY memfd
> + struct inotify_event events[2];
> + get_events(ARRAY_SIZE(events), events);
> + expect_event(events + 0, 1, IN_ACCESS);
> + expect_event(events + 1, 2, IN_MODIFY);
> +
> + char buf[sizeof(__func__)];
> + SAFE_LSEEK(memfd, 0, SEEK_SET);
> + SAFE_READ(true, memfd, buf, sizeof(__func__));
> + if (memcmp(buf, __func__, sizeof(__func__)))
> + tst_brk(TFAIL, "buf contents bad");
> +}
> +
> +#define P2P(splice) \
> + SAFE_WRITE(SAFE_WRITE_RETRY, data_pipes[1], __func__, sizeof(__func__)); \
> + watch_rw(data_pipes[0]); \
> + watch_rw(pipes[1]); \
> + TEST(splice); \
> + if (TST_RET == -1) \
> + tst_brk(TBROK | TERRNO, #splice); \
> + if (TST_RET != sizeof(__func__)) \
> + tst_brk(TBROK, #splice ": %" PRId64 "", TST_RET); \
> + \
> + /* expecting: IN_ACCESS data_pipes[0], IN_MODIFY pipes[1] */ \
> + struct inotify_event events[2]; \
> + get_events(ARRAY_SIZE(events), events); \
> + expect_event(events + 0, 1, IN_ACCESS); \
> + expect_event(events + 1, 2, IN_MODIFY); \
> + \
> + char buf[sizeof(__func__)]; \
> + SAFE_READ(true, pipes[0], buf, sizeof(__func__)); \
> + if (memcmp(buf, __func__, sizeof(__func__))) \
> + tst_brk(TFAIL, "buf contents bad");
> +static void splice_pipe_to_pipe(void) {
> + P2P(splice(data_pipes[0], NULL, pipes[1], NULL, 128 * 1024 * 1024, 0));
> +}
> +static void tee_pipe_to_pipe(void) {
> + P2P(tee(data_pipes[0], pipes[1], 128 * 1024 * 1024, 0));
> +}
> +
> +static char vmsplice_pipe_to_mem_dt[32 * 1024];
> +static void vmsplice_pipe_to_mem(void) {
> + memcpy(vmsplice_pipe_to_mem_dt, __func__, sizeof(__func__));
> + watch_rw(pipes[0]);
> + TEST(vmsplice(pipes[1],
> + &(struct iovec){.iov_base = vmsplice_pipe_to_mem_dt,
> + .iov_len = sizeof(vmsplice_pipe_to_mem_dt)},
> + 1, SPLICE_F_GIFT));
> + if (TST_RET == -1)
> + tst_brk(TBROK | TERRNO, "vmsplice");
> + if (TST_RET != sizeof(vmsplice_pipe_to_mem_dt))
> + tst_brk(TBROK, "vmsplice: %" PRId64 "", TST_RET);
> +
> + // expecting: IN_MODIFY pipes[0]
> + struct inotify_event event;
> + get_events(1, &event);
> + expect_event(&event, 1, IN_MODIFY);
> +
> + char buf[sizeof(__func__)];
> + SAFE_READ(true, pipes[0], buf, sizeof(__func__));
> + if (memcmp(buf, __func__, sizeof(__func__)))
> + tst_brk(TFAIL, "buf contents bad");
> +}
> +
> +static void vmsplice_mem_to_pipe(void) {
> + char buf[sizeof(__func__)];
> + SAFE_WRITE(SAFE_WRITE_RETRY, pipes[1], __func__, sizeof(__func__));
> + watch_rw(pipes[1]);
> + TEST(vmsplice(pipes[0],
> + &(struct iovec){.iov_base = buf, .iov_len = sizeof(buf)}, 1,
> + 0));
> + if (TST_RET == -1)
> + tst_brk(TBROK | TERRNO, "vmsplice");
> + if (TST_RET != sizeof(buf))
> + tst_brk(TBROK, "vmsplice: %" PRId64 "", TST_RET);
> +
> + // expecting: IN_ACCESS pipes[1]
> + struct inotify_event event;
> + get_events(1, &event);
> + expect_event(&event, 1, IN_ACCESS);
> + if (memcmp(buf, __func__, sizeof(__func__)))
> + tst_brk(TFAIL, "buf contents bad");
> +}
> +
> +typedef void (*tests_f)(void);
> +#define TEST_F(f) { f, #f }
> +static const struct {
> + tests_f f;
> + const char *n;
> +} tests[] = {
> + TEST_F(splice_file_to_pipe), TEST_F(sendfile_file_to_pipe),
> + TEST_F(splice_pipe_to_file), TEST_F(splice_pipe_to_pipe),
> + TEST_F(tee_pipe_to_pipe), TEST_F(vmsplice_pipe_to_mem),
> + TEST_F(vmsplice_mem_to_pipe),
> +};
> +
> +static void run_test(unsigned int n)
> +{
> + tst_res(TINFO, "%s", tests[n].n);
> +
> + SAFE_PIPE2(pipes, O_CLOEXEC);
> + SAFE_PIPE2(data_pipes, O_CLOEXEC);
> + inotify = SAFE_MYINOTIFY_INIT1(IN_NONBLOCK | IN_CLOEXEC);
> + if((memfd = memfd_create(__func__, MFD_CLOEXEC)) == -1)
> + tst_brk(TCONF | TERRNO, "memfd");
> + tests[n].f();

Normally, a test cases table would encode things like
the number of expected events and type of events.
The idea is that the test template has parametrized code
and not just a loop for test cases subroutines, but there
are many ways to write tests, so as long as it gets the job
done and is readable to humans, I don't mind.

Right now this test may do the job, but it is not readable
for this human ;-)
mostly because of the huge macros -
LTP is known for pretty large macros, but those are
for generic utilities and you have complete test cases
written as macros (templates).

> + tst_res(TPASS, "ок");
> +}
> +
> +static void cleanup(void)
> +{
> + if (memfd != -1)
> + SAFE_CLOSE(memfd);
> + if (inotify != -1)
> + SAFE_CLOSE(inotify);
> + if (pipes[0] != -1)
> + SAFE_CLOSE(pipes[0]);
> + if (pipes[1] != -1)
> + SAFE_CLOSE(pipes[1]);
> + if (data_pipes[0] != -1)
> + SAFE_CLOSE(data_pipes[0]);
> + if (data_pipes[1] != -1)
> + SAFE_CLOSE(data_pipes[1]);
> +}
> +

This cleanup does not happen for every test case -
it happens only at the end of all the tests IIRC.

> +static struct tst_test test = {
> + .max_runtime = 10,
> + .cleanup = cleanup,
> + .test = run_test,
> + .tcnt = ARRAY_SIZE(tests),
> + .tags = (const struct tst_tag[]) {
> + {"linux-git", "983652c69199"},

Leave this out for now.

Thanks,
Amir.

Next message: Ian Rogers: "Re: [PATCH] perf top & record: Fix segfault when default cycles event is not supported"
Previous message: Konrad Dybcio: "[PATCH v11 9/9] arm64: dts: qcom: msm8998: Configure CPRh"
In reply to: Ahelenia Ziemiańska: "[LTP PATCH] inotify13: new test for fs/splice.c functions vs pipes vs inotify"
Next in thread: Ahelenia Ziemiańska: "[LTP RFC PATCH v2] inotify13: new test for fs/splice.c functions vs pipes vs inotify"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]