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
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]/
Signed-off-by: Ritesh Harjani <[email protected]>
---
tests/ext4/054 | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/tests/ext4/054 b/tests/ext4/054
index 9a11719f..21fa4e0a 100755
--- a/tests/ext4/054
+++ b/tests/ext4/054
@@ -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
On Tue, Jan 25, 2022 at 11:32:01AM +0530, Ritesh Harjani wrote:
> 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
>
>
> [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
On Tue, Jan 25, 2022 at 11:32:01AM +0530, Ritesh Harjani wrote:
> 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
On 22/01/25 03:43PM, Eryu Guan wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 25, 2022 at 11:32:01AM +0530, Ritesh Harjani wrote:
> > 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.
Yes, I agree with it.
>
> 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
On 22/01/25 03:08PM, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 25, 2022 at 11:32:01AM +0530, Ritesh Harjani wrote:
> > 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.
>
Sure Ted, thanks a lot for the backport and for providing above information.
-ritesh