[PATCH blktests 0/2] add nvme test for creating sleep while atomic kernel BUG

[Nilay Shroff]

On 12/3/24 13:56, Shinichiro Kawasaki wrote:
> CC: Jirong,
> 
> On Dec 03, 2024 / 11:08, Nilay Shroff wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 11/30/24 14:40, Shinichiro Kawasaki wrote:
>>> On Nov 29, 2024 / 13:31, Nilay Shroff wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> There're two patches in this series. The first patch is a preparation patch 
>>>> for reusing a common function nvmf_wait_for_ns from multiple nvme test scripts. 
>>>> The second patch adds a new nvme regression[1] test for commit 505363957fad 
>>>> ("nvmet: fix nvme status code when namespace is disabled").
>>>
>>> Hi Nilay, thank your very much for the fix actions. Much appreciated.
>>>
>>> I tried these blktests patches with the kernel just before the commit
>>> 505363957fad, at the git hash 6825bdde4434. I expected the new test case fails,
>>> but it passes. I increased the number of iterations from 10 to 100, but it still
>>> passes. Do you observe the test case failure on your test systems?
>> If you ran blktests at git hash 6825bdde4434 then that doesn't include ns changes 
>> which uses mutex_lock. So it's expected that the test wouldn't fail. Did you try
>> running test using latest upstream kernel or checking out tree at commit 
>> 505363957fad ("nvmet: fix nvme status code when namespace is disabled")?
> 
> Yes, I see the test case creates "BUG: sleeping function called from invalid
> context". Now I see that you added this new test case nvme/055 to recreate the
> BUG. However, I observed the BUG at the first place with nvme/052, which can be
> used to confirm the BUG fixed. So it does not look so meaningful to add the new
> test case.
> 
> I think my report "blktests failures with v6.12 kernel [X]" confused you. I
> wrote "It is desired to have a better fix and the test case to confirm it.", but
> I should have wrote "It is desired to have a better fix and the test case to
> confirm that the fix does not break the intent of the trigger commit
> 505363957fad." Please find the discussion about how to test the fix patch [Y].
> The question was: how to "confirm that the commit 505363957fad achieves its
> purpose" ?.
> 
> [X] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-block/6crydkodszx5vq4ieox3jjpwkxtu7mhbohypy24awlo5w7f4k6@to3dcng24rd4/
> [Y] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-nvme/20241023052042.GB1341@lst.de/
> 
Yeah I read that explanation and I also saw in another discussion[Z] you mentioned, 
it's udev daemon manifesting this kernel BUG. So my initial thought was that relying
on udev to recreate a bug may not be good idea because udev rules could change without 
out control and those rules could be different from one distro to another.. 

Hence I thought about writing a test case so that we could reliably recreate this BUG
without any external dependency...

[Z] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-nvme/tqcy3sveity7p56v7ywp7ssyviwcb3w4623cnxj3knoobfcanq@yxgt2mjkbkam/
> 
> Jirong,
> 
> I found your Tested-by tag for the commit 505363957fad. Could you share how did
> you test the commit? It will help for us to have more confidence on Nilay's
> patch.

Thanks,
--Nilay