xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] xfstests: 253: test the metadump functionality of xfs_db

To: Alex Elder <aelder@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfstests: 253: test the metadump functionality of xfs_db
From: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 12:19:48 +1000
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <01d934eed0de0a992f3f8d6d609fa32d7e966b04.1303422281.git.aelder@xxxxxxx>
References: <01d934eed0de0a992f3f8d6d609fa32d7e966b04.1303422281.git.aelder@xxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 04:44:45PM -0500, Alex Elder wrote:
> This patch creates a test that exercises xfs_metadump, with a focus
> on its obfuscation of names.  It was created to verify fixes that
> avoided a hang condition when running "xfs_metadump" on a directory
> containing files having particular bit patterns in their name.
> Arkadiusz MiÅ?kiewicz first reported seeing this while attempting
> to create a metadump for a filesystem containing a file named
> "R\323\257NE".
> 
> For now this script checks the following (using only filenames, not
> attributes):
> - that short names (4 characters or less) aren't obfuscated
> - that long names get obfuscated
> - that (long) directory names get obfuscated
> - that names that are known to produce bit patterns that lead
>   to invalid path components still generate obfuscated names
>   (this could previously lead to a hang)
> - that many names of the same length can still generate new
>   obfuscated names (this could previously lead to a hang)
> - that neither "lost+found" nor orphaned files stored in it ge
>   obfuscated
> 
> Right now there are two sets of "ls" commands executed (one before
> and one after obfuscation).  This produces repeatable results for
> me on one filesystem, but on a different filesystem I expect the
> inode numbers to change (and random number generation might change
> the output too).  I'm interested in suggestions on how to filter
> the output so the results can be verified.  If nothing else, the
> test serves its purpose if I simply comment out those commands,
> and will do that if there's not a better suggstion.

Don't put the listing in the golden output - just put it in
$seq.full. That way if the test fails, the output is still there for
analysis.

Otherwise looks good.

Reviewed-by: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx>

-- 
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>