[PATCH 12/11 TESTSUITE] audit_testsuite: Add stress test for tree watches

[Paul Moore]

On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 6:04 AM Jan Kara <jack at suse.cz> wrote:
> On Thu 11-10-18 19:03:53, Paul Moore wrote:
> > On October 11, 2018 7:39:39 AM Jan Kara <jack at suse.cz> wrote:
> > > On Wed 10-10-18 02:43:46, Paul Moore wrote:
> > >> On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 3:40 AM Jan Kara <jack at suse.cz> wrote:
> > >>> On Fri 05-10-18 17:06:22, Paul Moore wrote:
> > >>>> On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 12:06 PM Jan Kara <jack at suse.cz> wrote:
> > >>>>> Add stress test for stressing audit tree watches by adding and deleting
> > >>>>> rules while events are generated and watched filesystems are mounted and
> > >>>>> unmounted in parallel.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack at suse.cz>
> > >>>>> ---
> > >>>>> tests/stress_tree/Makefile |   8 +++
> > >>>>> tests/stress_tree/test     | 171 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > >>>>> 2 files changed, 179 insertions(+)
> > >>>>> create mode 100644 tests/stress_tree/Makefile
> > >>>>> create mode 100755 tests/stress_tree/test
> > >>>>
> > >>>> No commentary on the test itself, other than perhaps it should live
> > >>>> under test_manual/, but in running the tests in a loop today I am
> > >>>> reliably able to panic my test kernel after ~30m or so.
> > >>>
> > >>> Interesting. How do you run the test?
> > >>
> > >> Nothing fancy, just a simple bash loop:
> > >>
> > >> # cd tests/stress_tree
> > >> # while ./test; do /bin/true; done
> > >
> > > OK, I did succeed in reproducing some problems with my patches - once I was
> > > able to trigger a livelock and following softlockup warning - this is
> > > actually a problem introduced by my patches, and once a use after free
> > > issue (not sure what that was since after I've added some debugging I
> > > wasn't able to trigger it anymore). Anyway, I'll try more after fixing the
> > > livelock. Do you want me to add fixes on top of my series or just fixup the
> > > original series?
> >
> > Since these are pretty serious bugs, and I try to avoid merging
> > known-broken patches which will go up to Linus, why don't you go ahead
> > and respin the patchset with the new fixes included.  You can also use
> > the opportunity to squash in the rename patch and fix that mid-patchset
> > compilation problem that I fixed up during the merge.
>
> OK, I'm now testing a version with the softlockup fixed and some locking
> around untag_chunk() simplified when I had to meddle with that anyway. I'll
> see if I can hit further failures...

Thanks for the update, let me know how the testing goes ...

-- 
paul moore
www.paul-moore.com