On Wed, 2023-06-21 at 20:22 +0500, Stas Sergeev wrote:
Test the basic locking stuff on 2 fds: multiple read locks, conflicts between read and write locks, use of len==0 for queries. Also tests for F_UNLCK F_OFD_GETLK extension.
Signed-off-by: Stas Sergeev stsp2@yandex.ru
CC: Jeff Layton jlayton@kernel.org CC: Chuck Lever chuck.lever@oracle.com CC: Alexander Viro viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk CC: Christian Brauner brauner@kernel.org CC: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org CC: Shuah Khan shuah@kernel.org CC: linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org CC: linux-api@vger.kernel.org
tools/testing/selftests/locking/Makefile | 2 + tools/testing/selftests/locking/ofdlocks.c | 132 +++++++++++++++++++++ 2 files changed, 134 insertions(+) create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/locking/ofdlocks.c
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/locking/Makefile b/tools/testing/selftests/locking/Makefile index 6e7761ab3536..a83ced1626de 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/locking/Makefile +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/locking/Makefile @@ -7,4 +7,6 @@ all: TEST_PROGS := ww_mutex.sh +TEST_GEN_PROGS := ofdlocks
include ../lib.mk
I'm not sure this really belongs in the "locking" directory. Given that there is only the ww_mutex test in there, that's more for internal synchronization mechanisms, I think.
Can you create a new "filelock" directory and drop this into there instead?
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/locking/ofdlocks.c b/tools/testing/selftests/locking/ofdlocks.c new file mode 100644 index 000000000000..1ccb2b9b5ead --- /dev/null +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/locking/ofdlocks.c @@ -0,0 +1,132 @@ +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
+#define _GNU_SOURCE +#include <fcntl.h> +#include <assert.h> +#include <stdio.h> +#include <unistd.h> +#include <string.h> +#include "../kselftest.h"
+static int lock_set(int fd, struct flock *fl) +{
- int ret;
- fl->l_pid = 0; // needed for OFD locks
- fl->l_whence = SEEK_SET;
- ret = fcntl(fd, F_OFD_SETLK, fl);
- if (ret)
perror("fcntl()");- return ret;
+}
+static int lock_get(int fd, struct flock *fl) +{
- int ret;
- fl->l_pid = 0; // needed for OFD locks
- fl->l_whence = SEEK_SET;
- ret = fcntl(fd, F_OFD_GETLK, fl);
- if (ret)
perror("fcntl()");- return ret;
+}
+int main(void) +{
- int rc;
- struct flock fl, fl2;
- int fd = open("/tmp/aa", O_RDWR | O_CREAT | O_EXCL, 0600);
- int fd2 = open("/tmp/aa", O_RDONLY);
- unlink("aa");
- assert(fd != -1);
- assert(fd2 != -1);
- ksft_print_msg("[INFO] opened fds %i %i\n", fd, fd2);
- /* Set some read lock */
- fl.l_type = F_RDLCK;
- fl.l_start = 5;
- fl.l_len = 3;
- rc = lock_set(fd, &fl);
- if (rc == 0) {
ksft_print_msg("[SUCCESS] set OFD read lock on first fd\n");- } else {
ksft_print_msg("[FAIL] to set OFD read lock on first fd\n");return -1;- }
- /* Make sure read locks do not conflict on different fds. */
- fl.l_type = F_RDLCK;
- fl.l_start = 5;
- fl.l_len = 1;
- rc = lock_get(fd2, &fl);
- if (rc != 0)
return -1;- if (fl.l_type != F_UNLCK) {
ksft_print_msg("[FAIL] read locks conflicted\n");return -1;- }
- /* Make sure read/write locks do conflict on different fds. */
- fl.l_type = F_WRLCK;
- fl.l_start = 5;
- fl.l_len = 1;
- rc = lock_get(fd2, &fl);
- if (rc != 0)
return -1;- if (fl.l_type != F_UNLCK) {
ksft_print_msg("[SUCCESS] read and write locks conflicted\n");- } else {
ksft_print_msg("[SUCCESS] read and write locks not conflicted\n");return -1;- }
- /* Get info about the lock on first fd. */
- fl.l_type = F_UNLCK;
- fl.l_start = 5;
- fl.l_len = 1;
- rc = lock_get(fd, &fl);
- if (rc != 0) {
ksft_print_msg("[FAIL] F_OFD_GETLK with F_UNLCK not supported\n");return -1;- }
- if (fl.l_type != F_UNLCK) {
ksft_print_msg("[SUCCESS] F_UNLCK test returns: locked, type %i pid %i len %zi\n",fl.l_type, fl.l_pid, fl.l_len);- } else {
ksft_print_msg("[FAIL] F_OFD_GETLK with F_UNLCK did not return lock info\n");return -1;- }
- /* Try the same but by locking everything by len==0. */
- fl2.l_type = F_UNLCK;
- fl2.l_start = 0;
- fl2.l_len = 0;
- rc = lock_get(fd, &fl2);
- if (rc != 0) {
ksft_print_msg("[FAIL] F_OFD_GETLK with F_UNLCK not supported\n");return -1;- }
- if (memcmp(&fl, &fl2, sizeof(fl))) {
ksft_print_msg("[FAIL] F_UNLCK test returns: locked, type %i pid %i len %zi\n",fl.l_type, fl.l_pid, fl.l_len);return -1;- }
- ksft_print_msg("[SUCCESS] F_UNLCK with len==0 returned the same\n");
- /* Get info about the lock on second fd - no locks on it. */
- fl.l_type = F_UNLCK;
- fl.l_start = 0;
- fl.l_len = 0;
- lock_get(fd2, &fl);
- if (fl.l_type != F_UNLCK) {
ksft_print_msg("[FAIL] F_OFD_GETLK with F_UNLCK return lock info from another fd\n");return -1;- }
- return 0;
+}
I'm not opposed to adding a selftest here, but most filesystem testing is done via xfstests:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/fs/xfs/xfstests-dev.git/
It would be better to add this test to the existing generic/478 test that tests OFD locks. Can you patch that to add a test for the new functionality?
Thanks,