ext4/054: Should we remove auto and quick group?
cover ext4/054: Should we remove auto and quick group?
Hello Zhang/Ted,
Looks like the issue fixed by patches at [1], were observed with fault injection testing and with errors=continue mount option. But were not cc'd to stable.
Do you think those should be cc'd to stable tree?
Meanwhile, I was thinking we should anyway remove auto and quick group from this test as it could trigger a bug on in older kernel targets. Thoughts?
[1]: https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/
Ritesh Harjani (1):
ext4/054: Remove auto and quick group
tests/ext4/054 | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
--
2.31.1
RFC 1/1 ext4/054: Remove auto and quick group
It seems this test creates a crafted corrupted image by modifying ext4 extent block structure of an inode to test some ext4 extent consistency fixes done at [1].
This IMO, should not be in auto and quick group, since it could cause BUG_ON() and happens only with some crafted corrupted image (or with fault injection testing with errors=continue mount option).
[1]: https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/
--- tests/ext4/054 | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
tests/ext4/054 +1 -1
@@ -12,7 +12,7 @@ # ext4_valid_extent_entries()) . ./common/preamble -_begin_fstest auto quick dangerous_fuzzers +_begin_fstest dangerous_fuzzers # Import common functions . ./common/filter
--
2.31.1
Quoted 9 lines · Ritesh Harjani
Hello Zhang/Ted,
Looks like the issue fixed by patches at [1], were observed with fault injection testing and with errors=continue mount option. But were not cc'd to stable.
Do you think those should be cc'd to stable tree?
Meanwhile, I was thinking we should anyway remove auto and quick group from this test as it could trigger a bug on in older kernel targets. Thoughts?
IMO, ext4/054 is a targeted regression test and should be in auto group, which ensures the bug doesn't get re-introduced in future.
I think you could just skip this test to fit your kernel version, e.g.
echo ext4/054 > ext4.exclude
./check -X ext4.exclude
Thanks,
Eryu
Quoted 12 lines
[1]: https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/
Ritesh Harjani (1):
ext4/054: Remove auto and quick grouptests/ext4/054 | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)--
2.31.1
Quoted 6 lines · Eryu Guan
Quoted 5 lines · Ritesh Harjani
Hello Zhang/Ted,
Looks like the issue fixed by patches at [1], were observed with fault injection testing and with errors=continue mount option. But were not cc'd to stable.
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 4 lines
Do you think those should be cc'd to stable tree?
Meanwhile, I was thinking we should anyway remove auto and quick group from this test as it could trigger a bug on in older kernel targets. Thoughts?
IMO, ext4/054 is a targeted regression test and should be in auto group, which ensures the bug doesn't get re-introduced in future.
Yes, I agree with it.
Quoted 5 lines
I think you could just skip this test to fit your kernel version, e.g.
echo ext4/054 > ext4.exclude
./check -X ext4.exclude
Sure, thanks Eryu.
-ritesh
Quoted 6 lines · Ritesh Harjani
Hello Zhang/Ted,
Looks like the issue fixed by patches at [1], were observed with fault injection testing and with errors=continue mount option. But were not cc'd to stable.
Do you think those should be cc'd to stable tree?
I already requested that they be backported, and they are in 5.10.89+ and 5.15.12+. Unfortunately the patches don't backport cleanly into 5.4, and while I did the manual backport for 5.10, I haven't gotten around to backporting them into 5.4 or older kernels.
- Ted
Quoted 6 lines · Theodore Y. Ts'o
Quoted 5 lines · Ritesh Harjani
Hello Zhang/Ted,
Looks like the issue fixed by patches at [1], were observed with fault injection testing and with errors=continue mount option. But were not cc'd to stable.
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 1 line
Do you think those should be cc'd to stable tree?
I already requested that they be backported, and they are in 5.10.89+ and 5.15.12+. Unfortunately the patches don't backport cleanly into 5.4, and while I did the manual backport for 5.10, I haven't gotten around to backporting them into 5.4 or older kernels.
Sure Ted, thanks a lot for the backport and for providing above information.
-ritesh