From: Zorro Lang <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: [PATCH v2 2/3] fsstress: bypass io_uring testing if io_uring_queue_init returns EPERM
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2024 00:20:28 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
I found the io_uring testing still fails as:
io_uring_queue_init failed
even if kernel supports io_uring feature.
That because of the /proc/sys/kernel/io_uring_disabled isn't 0.
Different value means:
0 All processes can create io_uring instances as normal.
1 io_uring creation is disabled (io_uring_setup() will fail with
-EPERM) for unprivileged processes not in the io_uring_group
group. Existing io_uring instances can still be used. See the
documentation for io_uring_group for more information.
2 io_uring creation is disabled for all processes. io_uring_setup()
always fails with -EPERM. Existing io_uring instances can still
be used.
So besides the CONFIG_IO_URING kernel config, there's another switch
can on or off the io_uring supporting. And the "2" or "1" might be
the default on some systems.
On this situation the io_uring_queue_init returns -EPERM, so I change
the fsstress to ignore io_uring testing if io_uring_queue_init returns
-ENOSYS or -EPERM. And print different verbose message for debug.
Signed-off-by: Zorro Lang <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Darrick J. Wong <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Jeff Moyer <[email protected]>
---
ltp/fsstress.c | 16 ++++++++++++++--
1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/ltp/fsstress.c b/ltp/fsstress.c
index 4fc50efb..9d2631f7 100644
--- a/ltp/fsstress.c
+++ b/ltp/fsstress.c
@@ -762,7 +762,12 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv)
#endif
#ifdef URING
have_io_uring = true;
- /* If ENOSYS, just ignore uring, other errors are fatal. */
+ /*
+ * If ENOSYS, just ignore uring, due to kernel doesn't support it.
+ * If EPERM, maybe due to sysctl kernel.io_uring_disabled isn't 0,
+ * or some selinux policies, etc.
+ * Other errors are fatal.
+ */
c = io_uring_queue_init(URING_ENTRIES, &ring, 0);
switch(c){
case 0:
@@ -770,9 +775,16 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv)
break;
case -ENOSYS:
have_io_uring = false;
+ if (verbose)
+ printf("io_uring isn't supported by kernel\n");
+ break;
+ case -EPERM:
+ have_io_uring = false;
+ if (verbose)
+ printf("io_uring isn't allowed, check io_uring_disabled sysctl or selinux policy\n");
break;
default:
- fprintf(stderr, "io_uring_queue_init failed\n");
+ fprintf(stderr, "io_uring_queue_init failed, errno=%d\n", -c);
exit(1);
}
#endif
--
2.43.0
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-03-11 16:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-03-11 16:20 [PATCH v2 0/3] fstests: fix io_uring testing Zorro Lang
2024-03-11 16:20 ` [PATCH v2 1/3] fsstress: check io_uring_queue_init errno properly Zorro Lang
2024-03-11 16:20 ` Zorro Lang [this message]
2024-03-11 16:20 ` [PATCH v2 3/3] common/rc: notrun if io_uring is disabled by sysctl Zorro Lang
2024-03-11 16:29 ` Darrick J. Wong
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox