[LTP] Could you provide some debug method for fanotify10 case?

[Amir Goldstein]

On Thu, Oct 13, 2022 at 11:28 AM Xu, Pengfei <pengfei.xu@intel.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi Jan and Amir,
>
>
>
> Greeting!
>
>
>
> I saw FAN_MARK_EVICTABLE has been added in 6.0-rc5 mainline kernel by Amir.

FYI, it was merged in v5.19.

>
> commit 7d5e005d982527e4029b0139823d179986e34cdc
>
> Author: Amir Goldstein amir73il@gmail.com
>
> Date:   Fri Apr 22 15:03:25 2022 +0300
>
>
>
> And I saw the FAN_MARK_EVICTABLE cases in LTP author is also Amir.
>
>
>
> Could you provide me some debug method for fanotify10  FAN_MARK_EVICTABLE failed cases?
>
>
>
> Thanks a lot!
>
>
>
> Platform: server
>
> Kernel:  6.0 mainline kernel
>
>
>
>
>
> This case could be reproduced about 30% rate.  (case start from 0,  and there are about 30% reproduce rate for case25, 26 and 27)
>
> There are 31 cases in fanotify10.c  (start from 0,  end with 30.)
>
> https://github.com/linux-test-project/ltp/blob/master/testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/fanotify10.c
>
> https://github.com/linux-test-project/ltp/blob/master/testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/fanotify_child.c   (For child process)
>
>
>
> Case 25:  "don't ignore fs events created on a file with evicted ignore mark"
>
> Case 26:  "don't ignore mount events created inside a parent with evicted ignore mark"
>
> Case 27:  "don't ignore fs events created inside a parent with evicted ignore mark"
>
> I comments all other case and only left  case 25,  case 26 and case 27  in  fanotify10_25  fanotify10_26  fanotify10_27.
>

The problem is that the test is not very reliable, because there is no
reliable API
to evict an inode from cache.

Do you have this commit in the LTP version that you are running?

commit 48cfd7a9977e6268b4aa2600608cebad7e0e42b8
Author: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Date:   Thu Aug 25 16:03:06 2022 +0200

    syscalls/fanotify10: Make evictable marks test more reliable

    In some setups evictable marks tests are failing because the inode with
    evictable mark does not get evicted. Make sure we sync the filesystem
    before we try to drop caches to increase likelyhood the inode will get
    evicted.


Thanks,
Amir.

>
>
> Case 25 failed info:
>
> fanotify10.c:586: TINFO: Test #25: don't ignore fs events created on a file with evicted ignore mark
>
> fanotify10.c:370: TPASS: No fanotify inode ignore marks as expected
>
> fanotify10.c:370: TPASS: No fanotify inode ignore marks as expected
>
> fanotify10.c:370: TPASS: No fanotify inode ignore marks as expected
>
> fanotify10.c:374: TFAIL: Found unexpected inode ignore mark (mflags=240, mask=0 ignored_mask=20)
>
> fanotify10.c:374: TFAIL: Found unexpected inode ignore mark (mflags=240, mask=0 ignored_mask=20)
>
> fanotify10.c:374: TFAIL: Found unexpected inode ignore mark (mflags=240, mask=0 ignored_mask=20)
>
> fanotify10.c:374: TFAIL: Found unexpected inode ignore mark (mflags=240, mask=0 ignored_mask=20)
>
> fanotify10.c:374: TFAIL: Found unexpected inode ignore mark (mflags=240, mask=0 ignored_mask=20)
>
> fanotify10.c:374: TFAIL: Found unexpected inode ignore mark (mflags=240, mask=0 ignored_mask=20)
>
> fanotify10.c:374: TFAIL: Found unexpected inode ignore mark (mflags=240, mask=0 ignored_mask=20)
>
> fanotify10.c:374: TFAIL: Found unexpected inode ignore mark (mflags=240, mask=0 ignored_mask=20)
>
> fanotify10.c:374: TFAIL: Found unexpected inode ignore mark (mflags=240, mask=0 ignored_mask=20)
>
> fanotify10.c:547: TPASS: group 0 (8) got event: mask 20 pid=183494 fd=16
>
> fanotify10.c:547: TPASS: group 1 (8) got event: mask 20 pid=183494 fd=16
>
> fanotify10.c:547: TPASS: group 2 (8) got event: mask 20 pid=183494 fd=16
>
> fanotify10.c:642: TFAIL: group 0 (4) with FAN_MARK_FILESYSTEM did not get event
>
> fanotify10.c:642: TFAIL: group 1 (4) with FAN_MARK_FILESYSTEM did not get event
>
> fanotify10.c:642: TFAIL: group 2 (4) with FAN_MARK_FILESYSTEM did not get event
>
> fanotify10.c:642: TFAIL: group 0 (0) with FAN_MARK_FILESYSTEM did not get event
>
> fanotify10.c:642: TFAIL: group 1 (0) with FAN_MARK_FILESYSTEM did not get event
>
> fanotify10.c:642: TFAIL: group 2 (0) with FAN_MARK_FILESYSTEM did not get event
>
> fanotify10.c:642: TFAIL: group 0 (e00) with FAN_MARK_FILESYSTEM did not get event
>
> fanotify10.c:642: TFAIL: group 1 (e00) with FAN_MARK_FILESYSTEM did not get event
>
> fanotify10.c:642: TFAIL: group 2 (e00) with FAN_MARK_FILESYSTEM did not get event
>
>
>
> Case 25 passed dmesg part and case 25 failed dmesg part are in attached,  I didn’t see some abnormal from dmesg.
>
>
>
>
>
> Could you provide me some debug way to check the failed case further?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks!
>
> BR
>
> Pengfei
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>