Hi all,
On Aug 27, 2024, at 9:22 AM, Petr Vorel pvorel@suse.cz wrote:
Hi all,
On 23. 08. 24 23:59, NeilBrown wrote:
On Fri, 23 Aug 2024, Petr Vorel wrote:
We discussed in v1 how to fix tests. Neil suggested to fix the test the way so that it works on all kernels. As I note [1]
- either we give up on checking the new functionality still works (if we
fallback to old behavior)
I don't understand. What exactly do you mean by "the new functionality". As I understand it there is no new functionality. All there was was and information leak between network namespaces, and we stopped the leak. Do you consider that to be new functionality?
Thanks Martin for jumping in. I hoped I was clear, but obviously not.
Following are the questions for kernel maintainers and developers. I put my opinion, but it's really up to you what you want to have tested.
The new functionality is that the patches add a new file to network namespaces: /proc/net/rpc/nfs. This file did not exist outside the root network namespace at least on some of the kernels where we still need to run this test. So the question is: How aggressively do we want to enforce backporting of these NFS patches into distros with older kernels?
We have 3 options how to fix the test depending on the answer:
- Don't enforce at all. We'll check whether /proc/net/rpc/nfs exists in the
client namespace and read it only if it does. Otherwise we'll fall back on the global file.
- is IMHO the worst case because it's not testing patch gets reverted.
- Enforce aggressively. We'll hardcode a minimal kernel version into the
test (e.g. v5.4) and if the procfile doesn't exist on any newer kernel, it's a bug.
I would prefer 2), which is the usual LTP approach (do not hide bugs, we even fail on upstream kernel WONTFIX [1], why we should refuse the policy here?).
- makes sense to me.
Thanks for your opinion. I'll send another version (+ still wait for others input).
Kind regards, Petr
Whichever older LTS upstream kernel gets fixed would drive the line where new functionality is requested (currently v5.14, I suppose at least 5.10 will also be fixed). LTP also has a way to specify enterprise distro kernel version if older enterprise kernel also gets fixed (this should not be needed, but it'd be possible).
- Enforce on new kernels only. We'll set a hard requirement for kernel
v6.9+ as in option 2) and check for existence of the procfile on any older kernels as in option 1).
Due way to specify enterprise distro kernel version and upstream kernel testing expecting people update to the latest stable/LTS we should not worry much about people with older kernels.
Kind regards, Petr
[1] https://github.com/linux-test-project/ltp/blob/master/testcases/kernel/sysca...