Re: [PATCH v2 03/10] syscalls/fanotify20: Introduce helpers for FAN_FS_ERROR test
From: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com>
Date: 2021-10-27 06:33:58
Also in:
ltp
On Tue, Oct 26, 2021 at 9:43 PM Gabriel Krisman Bertazi [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
fanotify20 is a new test validating the FAN_FS_ERROR file system error event. This adds some basic structure for the next patches. The strategy for error reporting testing in fanotify20 goes like this: - Generate a broken filesystem - Start FAN_FS_ERROR monitoring group - Make the file system notice the error through ordinary operations - Observe the event generated Signed-off-by: Gabriel Krisman Bertazi <redacted> --- Changes since v1: - Move defines to header file. --- testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/.gitignore | 1 + testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/fanotify.h | 3 + .../kernel/syscalls/fanotify/fanotify20.c | 128 ++++++++++++++++++ 3 files changed, 132 insertions(+) create mode 100644 testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/fanotify20.cdiff --git a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/.gitignore b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/.gitignore index 9554b16b196e..c99e6fff76d6 100644 --- a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/.gitignore +++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/.gitignore@@ -17,4 +17,5 @@ /fanotify17 /fanotify18 /fanotify19 +/fanotify20 /fanotify_childdiff --git a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/fanotify.h b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/fanotify.h index b2b56466d028..8828b53532a2 100644 --- a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/fanotify.h +++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/fanotify.h@@ -124,6 +124,9 @@ static inline int safe_fanotify_mark(const char *file, const int lineno, #ifndef FAN_OPEN_EXEC_PERM #define FAN_OPEN_EXEC_PERM 0x00040000 #endif +#ifndef FAN_FS_ERROR +#define FAN_FS_ERROR 0x00008000 +#endif /* Flags required for unprivileged user group */ #define FANOTIFY_REQUIRED_USER_INIT_FLAGS (FAN_REPORT_FID)diff --git a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/fanotify20.c b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/fanotify20.c new file mode 100644 index 000000000000..7a522aad4386 --- /dev/null +++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/fanotify20.c@@ -0,0 +1,128 @@ +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later +/* + * Copyright (c) 2021 Collabora Ltd. + * + * Author: Gabriel Krisman Bertazi <gabriel@krisman.be> + * Based on previous work by Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com> + */ + +/*\ + * [Description] + * Check fanotify FAN_ERROR_FS events triggered by intentionally + * corrupted filesystems: + * + * - Generate a broken filesystem + * - Start FAN_FS_ERROR monitoring group + * - Make the file system notice the error through ordinary operations + * - Observe the event generated + */ + +#define _GNU_SOURCE +#include "config.h" + +#include <stdio.h> +#include <sys/types.h> +#include <errno.h> +#include <string.h> +#include <sys/mount.h> +#include <sys/syscall.h> +#include "tst_test.h" +#include <sys/fanotify.h> +#include <sys/types.h> +#include <fcntl.h> + +#ifdef HAVE_SYS_FANOTIFY_H +#include "fanotify.h" + +#define BUF_SIZE 256 +static char event_buf[BUF_SIZE]; +int fd_notify; + +#define MOUNT_PATH "test_mnt" + +static struct test_case { + char *name; + void (*trigger_error)(void); +} testcases[] = { +}; +
Does LTP accept .tcnt = 0 gracefully? or maybe LTP project does not care much about failing tests during bisection?
+int check_error_event_metadata(struct fanotify_event_metadata *event)
+{
+ int fail = 0;
+
+ if (event->mask != FAN_FS_ERROR) {
+ fail++;
+ tst_res(TFAIL, "got unexpected event %llx",
+ (unsigned long long)event->mask);
+ }
+
+ if (event->fd != FAN_NOFD) {
+ fail++;
+ tst_res(TFAIL, "Weird FAN_FD %llx",
+ (unsigned long long)event->mask);
+ }
+ return fail;
+}
+
+void check_event(char *buf, size_t len, const struct test_case *ex)
+{
+ struct fanotify_event_metadata *event =
+ (struct fanotify_event_metadata *) buf;
+
+ if (len < FAN_EVENT_METADATA_LEN) {
+ tst_res(TFAIL, "No event metadata found");
+ return;
+ }
+
+ if (check_error_event_metadata(event))
+ return;
+
+ tst_res(TPASS, "Successfully received: %s", ex->name);
+}
+
+static void do_test(unsigned int i)
+{
+ const struct test_case *tcase = &testcases[i];
+ size_t read_len;
+
+ tcase->trigger_error();
+
+ read_len = SAFE_READ(0, fd_notify, event_buf, BUF_SIZE);
+
+ check_event(event_buf, read_len, tcase);
+}
+
+static void setup(void)
+{
+ REQUIRE_FANOTIFY_EVENTS_SUPPORTED_ON_FS(FAN_CLASS_NOTIF|FAN_REPORT_FID,
+ FAN_MARK_FILESYSTEM,
+ FAN_FS_ERROR, ".");
+
+ fd_notify = SAFE_FANOTIFY_INIT(FAN_CLASS_NOTIF|FAN_REPORT_FID,
+ O_RDONLY);
+
+ SAFE_FANOTIFY_MARK(fd_notify, FAN_MARK_ADD|FAN_MARK_FILESYSTEM,
+ FAN_FS_ERROR, AT_FDCWD, MOUNT_PATH);I think it is better to have the mark add/remove inside do_test This way when running fanotify -i 10 (which testers do) we also get test coverage for add/remove of mark with FS_ERROR mask. Thanks, Amir.