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

[Pengfei Xu]

Hi Amir,

On 2022-10-13 at 12:25:59 +0300, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> 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.
> 
 Ah, thanks for correction!

> >
> > 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.
> 
Yes, I used LTP head commit 8f7120b04f018e93f43834c7da63252290c4abc8
Author: Avinesh Kumar <akumar@suse.de>
Date:   Wed Jul 20 12:47:43 2022 +0530
    getitimer01.c: convert to new LTP API


It includes the commit 48cfd7a9977 you mentioned.
And I will have a try debug kernel which suggested by Jan Kara.

Thanks Amir and Jan both!

Thanks!
BR.

> 
> 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >