| Message ID | 1571968780-4810-1-git-send-email-xuyang2018.jy@cn.fujitsu.com |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted |
| Delegated to: | Petr Vorel |
| Headers | show |
| Series | syscalls/copy_file_range02: skip new error tests if cross-fs isn't supported | expand |
Hi Xu, > We should not skip the whole error test if cross-fs isn't support because > old errors should be tested on all version. Even we use .mount_device = 1 > and .mntpoint = MNTPOINT, the src and dest file are still in tmp directory > instead of mntpoint. > ps: I doubt whether we should skip new error test because it indeed exposed this > unreasonable copy_file_range behavior of the user. > Signed-off-by: Yang Xu <xuyang2018.jy@cn.fujitsu.com> Reviewed-by: Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz> Tested-by: Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz> LGTM, but I'd like to have Amir's review/ack. Kind regards, Petr
On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 11:37 AM Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz> wrote: > > Hi Xu, > > > We should not skip the whole error test if cross-fs isn't support because > > old errors should be tested on all version. Even we use .mount_device = 1 > > and .mntpoint = MNTPOINT, the src and dest file are still in tmp directory > > instead of mntpoint. > > > ps: I doubt whether we should skip new error test because it indeed exposed this > > unreasonable copy_file_range behavior of the user. > > > Signed-off-by: Yang Xu <xuyang2018.jy@cn.fujitsu.com> > Reviewed-by: Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz> > Tested-by: Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz> > > LGTM, but I'd like to have Amir's review/ack. > ACK. I'm fine with the test code. If you tested it and it passed on both new and old kernel, it's fine by me. Thanks, Amir.
on 2019/10/25 16:37, Petr Vorel wrote: > Hi Xu, > >> We should not skip the whole error test if cross-fs isn't support because >> old errors should be tested on all version. Even we use .mount_device = 1 >> and .mntpoint = MNTPOINT, the src and dest file are still in tmp directory >> instead of mntpoint. > >> ps: I doubt whether we should skip new error test because it indeed exposed this >> unreasonable copy_file_range behavior of the user. > >> Signed-off-by: Yang Xu <xuyang2018.jy@cn.fujitsu.com> > Reviewed-by: Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz> > Tested-by: Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz> > > LGTM, but I'd like to have Amir's review/ack. Hi Petr Now, I think it can be merged if you don't have other doubt. Thanks Yang Xu > > Kind regards, > Petr > >
Hi Xu, > > LGTM, but I'd like to have Amir's review/ack. > Now, I think it can be merged if you don't have other doubt. Thanks for your patch, merged. Kind regards, Petr
diff --git a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/copy_file_range/copy_file_range02.c b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/copy_file_range/copy_file_range02.c index a55de4111..e4159cad7 100644 --- a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/copy_file_range/copy_file_range02.c +++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/copy_file_range/copy_file_range02.c @@ -55,6 +55,7 @@ static int need_unlink; static int chattr_i_nsup; static int swap_nsup; +static int cross_sup; static int loop_devn; static struct tcase { @@ -63,21 +64,22 @@ static struct tcase { int exp_err; loff_t len; const char *tname; + int new_error; } tcases[] = { - {&fd_rdonly, 0, EBADF, CONTSIZE, "readonly file"}, - {&fd_dir, 0, EISDIR, CONTSIZE, "directory"}, - {&fd_append, 0, EBADF, CONTSIZE, "append to file"}, - {&fd_closed, 0, EBADF, CONTSIZE, "closed file descriptor"}, - {&fd_dest, -1, EINVAL, CONTSIZE, "invalid flags"}, - {&fd_immutable, 0, EPERM, CONTSIZE, "immutable file"}, - {&fd_swapfile, 0, ETXTBSY, CONTSIZE, "swap file"}, - {&fd_dup, 0, EINVAL, CONTSIZE/2, "overlaping range"}, - {&fd_blkdev, 0, EINVAL, CONTSIZE, "block device"}, - {&fd_chrdev, 0, EINVAL, CONTSIZE, "char device"}, - {&fd_fifo, 0, EINVAL, CONTSIZE, "fifo"}, - {&fd_pipe[0], 0, EINVAL, CONTSIZE, "pipe"}, - {&fd_copy, 0, EOVERFLOW, ULLONG_MAX, "max length lenght"}, - {&fd_copy, 0, EFBIG, MIN_OFF, "max file size"}, + {&fd_rdonly, 0, EBADF, CONTSIZE, "readonly file", 0}, + {&fd_dir, 0, EISDIR, CONTSIZE, "directory", 0}, + {&fd_append, 0, EBADF, CONTSIZE, "append to file", 0}, + {&fd_closed, 0, EBADF, CONTSIZE, "closed file descriptor", 0}, + {&fd_dest, -1, EINVAL, CONTSIZE, "invalid flags", 0}, + {&fd_immutable, 0, EPERM, CONTSIZE, "immutable file", 1}, + {&fd_swapfile, 0, ETXTBSY, CONTSIZE, "swap file", 1}, + {&fd_dup, 0, EINVAL, CONTSIZE/2, "overlaping range", 1}, + {&fd_blkdev, 0, EINVAL, CONTSIZE, "block device", 0}, + {&fd_chrdev, 0, EINVAL, CONTSIZE, "char device", 0}, + {&fd_fifo, 0, EINVAL, CONTSIZE, "fifo", 0}, + {&fd_pipe[0], 0, EINVAL, CONTSIZE, "pipe", 0}, + {&fd_copy, 0, EOVERFLOW, ULLONG_MAX, "max length lenght", 1}, + {&fd_copy, 0, EFBIG, MIN_OFF, "max file size", 1}, }; static int run_command(char *command, char *option, char *file) @@ -105,6 +107,11 @@ static void verify_copy_file_range(unsigned int n) tst_res(TINFO, "Test #%d: %s", n, tc->tname); + if (tc->new_error && !cross_sup) { + tst_res(TCONF, + "copy_file_range() doesn't support cross-device, skip it"); + return; + } if (tc->copy_to_fd == &fd_immutable && chattr_i_nsup) { tst_res(TCONF, "filesystem doesn't support chattr +i, skip it"); return; @@ -178,9 +185,7 @@ static void setup(void) syscall_info(); char dev_path[1024]; - if (!verify_cross_fs_copy_support(FILE_SRC_PATH, FILE_MNTED_PATH)) - tst_brk(TCONF, - "copy_file_range() doesn't support cross-device, skip it"); + cross_sup = verify_cross_fs_copy_support(FILE_SRC_PATH, FILE_MNTED_PATH); if (access(FILE_DIR_PATH, F_OK) == -1) SAFE_MKDIR(FILE_DIR_PATH, 0777);
We should not skip the whole error test if cross-fs isn't support because old errors should be tested on all version. Even we use .mount_device = 1 and .mntpoint = MNTPOINT, the src and dest file are still in tmp directory instead of mntpoint. ps: I doubt whether we should skip new error test because it indeed exposed this unreasonable copy_file_range behavior of the user. Signed-off-by: Yang Xu <xuyang2018.jy@cn.fujitsu.com> --- .../copy_file_range/copy_file_range02.c | 39 +++++++++++-------- 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)