[LTP] [PATCH v7 3/3] syscalls/copy_file_range02: increase coverage and remove EXDEV test

[Murphy Zhou]

On Thu, Aug 08, 2019 at 11:11:43AM +0800, Yang Xu wrote:
> on 2019/08/07 18:17, Murphy Zhou wrote:
> 
> > And I have a question about LTP itself.
> >
> > If we run the testcase directly like:
> > 	 ./testcases/kernel/syscalls/copy_file_range/copy_file_range02
> >
> > to test all_filesystems, for every filesystem, we mkfs and mount it in
> > .mntpoint, but we do not chdir to .mntpoint. So we are running tests in 
> > the same tmpdir, fs type of which does not change while looping
> > all_filesystems.  Only the .mntpoint in tmpdir has different fs type in
> > each loop.
> >
> > Now we are using this to test cross-device copy in copy_file_range01.c,
> > but in copy_file_range02.c, we are not using .mntpint at all, all the
> > tests in the all_filesystems loop are running in the same tmpdir. In other
> > words, we are NOT testing all filesystems.
> >
> > Is this expected?
>  I removed the mnted test for cross-device copy_file_range in copy_file_range02.c.
> And I ignore the non-used mntpoint. IMO, we can directly use the FILE_MNTED to test EFBIG on all filesystems, 

If mntpoint is not used, it makes absolutely NO sense to test all_filesystems.

Because in the all_filesystems loop, various supported filesystems are
created and mounted in mntpoint.

And the copy_file_range tests happens outside of mntpoint. It just repeats
the same test several times in the same tmpdir, fs type of which depends
on /tmp configuration.

When the log prints "testing ext2", it's not the truth.

EFBIG is another issue.

Thanks,
Murphy
> 
> as below:
> 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 26bfa008a..67974ffa2 100644
> --- a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/copy_file_range/copy_file_range02.c
> +++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/copy_file_range/copy_file_range02.c
> @@ -49,6 +49,7 @@ static int fd_blkdev;
>  static int fd_chrdev;
>  static int fd_fifo;
>  static int fd_copy;
> +static int fd_mnted;
> 
>  static int chattr_i_nsup;
>  static int swap_nsup;
> 
> @@ -73,7 +74,7 @@ static struct tcase {
>         {&fd_chrdev,    0,   EINVAL,     0,     CONTSIZE},
>         {&fd_fifo,      0,   EINVAL,     0,     CONTSIZE},
>         {&fd_copy,      0,   EOVERFLOW,  MAX_OFF, ULLONG_MAX},
> -       {&fd_copy,      0,   EFBIG,      MAX_OFF, MIN_OFF},
> +       {&fd_mnted,      0,   EFBIG,      MAX_OFF, MIN_OFF},
>  };
> 
>  static int run_command(char *command, char *option, char *file)
> @@ -117,7 +118,10 @@ static void verify_copy_file_range(unsigned int n)
>                         tst_res(TPASS | TTERRNO,
>                                         "copy_file_range failed as expected");
>                 } else {
> -                       tst_res(TFAIL | TTERRNO,
> +                       if (tc->exp_err == EFBIG && TST_ERR == EXDEV)
> +                               tst_res(TCONF, "copy_file_range doesn't support cross-device,skip it");
> +                       else
> +                               tst_res(TFAIL | TTERRNO,
>                                 "copy_file_range failed unexpectedly; expected %s, but got",
>                                 tst_strerrno(tc->exp_err));
>                         return;
> 
> @@ -152,6 +156,8 @@ static void cleanup(void)
>                 SAFE_CLOSE(fd_dup);
>         if (fd_copy > 0)
>                 SAFE_CLOSE(fd_copy);
> +       if (fd_mnted > 0)
> +               SAFE_CLOSE(fd_mnted);
>         SAFE_UNLINK(FILE_FIFO);
>  }
> 
> @@ -194,6 +200,7 @@ static void setup(void)
> 
>         fd_copy = SAFE_OPEN(FILE_COPY_PATH, O_RDWR | O_CREAT | O_TRUNC, 0664);
>         chattr_i_nsup = run_command("chattr", "+i", FILE_IMMUTABLE_PATH);
> +       fd_mnted  = SAFE_OPEN(FILE_MNTED_PATH, O_RDWR | O_CREAT, 0664);
> 
>         if (!tst_fs_has_free(".", sysconf(_SC_PAGESIZE) * 10, TST_BYTES)) {
>                 tst_res(TCONF, "Insufficient disk space to create swap file");
>                 swap_nsup = 3;
> 
> test12) succeed on extN, failed on both btrfs and xfs, we need to detect filesystem type to handle. Or, I think we 
> can set a limit on filesize because this kind of user scene is a bit more than the first one , the EFBIG error can be 
> received easily (Also, we don't need  mnt_device mntpoint all_filesystem if so).
> What do you think about it?
> 
> > I commented out testcases in copy_file_range02.c other then #12, and add
> > some nasty debug info:
> 
> 
>