Bug 2142910

Eric, since this bug was moved to RHEL 9.3, should we consider updating to more recent upstream version, e.g. 6.1.1?

I reached to Carlos, who is the upstream maintainer, he is not aware of any risky or problematic changes in 6.1 resp. 6.1.1 but still advocates for caution - so sticking with 5.19.

What do you think?

*** Bug 2086896 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

*** Bug 2122440 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

*** Bug 2122439 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

*** Bug 2122437 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

*** Bug 2162202 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

*** Bug 2160744 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

------- Comment From Pavithra.Visweswara 2023-01-30 05:40 EDT-------
Is there any progress on this issue or thoughts on what the next step(s) need to be?

------- Comment From sarahw.com 2023-02-27 17:49 EDT-------
Adding some background information I got from Manu:

1)Are the test cases new?  (Why are we finding this now?)

4k/64k block size  enablement was a new feature in community last year. which has made it into respective Distros.  Accordingly there has been effort to extend community based xfstests tests to test them.  Hence all these issues.

2)The summary lines call out the Everest platform.  Are these problems specific to Everest hardware?

Nope since it is filesystem related, it should be generic across platform.  We use the system tag to call out what config we have used.

And an update from Ritesh:

All of the bugzillas mentioned below are tested against new test cases which are recently added to xfstests suite (in second half of 2022). xfstests suite also gives hints of the patches/fixes which might be missing in kernel or fs tools, which might fix the reported problem. (Many of the tests are explicitly written to make sure these fixes/patches are pulled in various releases).
These failures were reported to RH as part of bz-201001. RH via comment in 201001#c7 has asked us to file separate bugs for various categories/group of tests. Hence these 4 new bugs for different category/group of failures reported via xfstests suite.
Bug 201170
Bug 201169
Bug 201275
Bug 201276

Regression test passed on xfsprogs-5.19.0-1.el9, didn't find regression from it.

There're 6 bugs DUP closed on this bug too, verify them as below:
1) xfs/543 test passed for bz2086896

FSTYP         -- xfs (non-debug)
PLATFORM      -- Linux/x86_64 dell-per750-08 5.14.0-303.el9.x86_64 #1 SMP PREEMPT_DYNAMIC Sun Apr 23 05:28:18 EDT 2023
MKFS_OPTIONS  -- -f -m crc=1,finobt=1,reflink=1,rmapbt=0,bigtime=1,inobtcount=1 /dev/sda3
MOUNT_OPTIONS -- -o context=system_u:object_r:root_t:s0 /dev/sda3 /mnt/xfstests/scratch

xfs/543        1s
Ran: xfs/543
Passed all 1 tests

2) xfs/191 test passed for bz2122437 and bz2162202 (it's not a P10 related bug, although it's reported on P10):

FSTYP         -- xfs (non-debug)
PLATFORM      -- Linux/x86_64 dell-per750-08 5.14.0-303.el9.x86_64 #1 SMP PREEMPT_DYNAMIC Sun Apr 23 05:28:18 EDT 2023
MKFS_OPTIONS  -- -f -m crc=1,finobt=1,reflink=1,rmapbt=0,bigtime=1,inobtcount=1 /dev/sda3
MOUNT_OPTIONS -- -o context=system_u:object_r:root_t:s0 /dev/sda3 /mnt/xfstests/scratch

xfs/191        1s
Ran: xfs/191
Passed all 1 tests

3) xfs/549 test passed for bz2122439 and bz2160744 (64k block size)

FSTYP         -- xfs (non-debug)
PLATFORM      -- Linux/x86_64 dell-per750-08 5.14.0-303.el9.x86_64 #1 SMP PREEMPT_DYNAMIC Sun Apr 23 05:28:18 EDT 2023
MKFS_OPTIONS  -- -f -m crc=1,finobt=1,reflink=1,rmapbt=0,bigtime=1,inobtcount=1 /dev/sda3
MOUNT_OPTIONS -- -o context=system_u:object_r:root_t:s0 /dev/sda3 /mnt/xfstests/scratch

xfs/549        1s
Ran: xfs/549
Passed all 1 tests

FSTYP         -- xfs (non-debug)
PLATFORM      -- Linux/ppc64le ibm-p9z-07-lp5 5.14.0-303.el9.ppc64le #1 SMP Sun Apr 23 14:01:05 EDT 2023
MKFS_OPTIONS  -- -f -b size=65536 /dev/sda3
MOUNT_OPTIONS -- -o context=system_u:object_r:root_t:s0 /dev/sda3 /mnt/xfstests/scratch

xfs/549 1s ...  1s
Ran: xfs/549
Passed all 1 tests

4) xfs/082 test passed for bz2122440

FSTYP         -- xfs (non-debug)
PLATFORM      -- Linux/x86_64 dell-per750-08 5.14.0-303.el9.x86_64 #1 SMP PREEMPT_DYNAMIC Sun Apr 23 05:28:18 EDT 2023
MKFS_OPTIONS  -- -f -m crc=1,finobt=1,reflink=1,rmapbt=0,bigtime=1,inobtcount=1 /dev/sda3
MOUNT_OPTIONS -- -o context=system_u:object_r:root_t:s0 /dev/sda3 /mnt/xfstests/scratch

xfs/082        1s
Ran: xfs/082
Passed all 1 tests

------- Comment From Disha.Goel 2023-05-02 02:48 EDT-------
(In reply to comment #12)
> Regression test passed on xfsprogs-5.19.0-1.el9, didn't find regression from
> it.
>
> There're 6 bugs DUP closed on this bug too, verify them as below:

Tested on RHEL 9.3 with xfsprogs version 5.19.0, xfs/191 test passed.

[root@]# ./check xfs/191
SECTION       -- xfs_4k
RECREATING    -- xfs on /dev/loop0
PLATFORM      -- Linux/ppc64le xxx 5.14.0-305.el9.ppc64le #1 SMP Thu Apr 27 09:11:51 EDT 2023
MKFS_OPTIONS  -- -f -f -bsize=4096 /dev/loop1
MOUNT_OPTIONS -- -o context=system_u:object_r:root_t:s0 /dev/loop1 /mnt/scratch

SECTION       -- xfs_64k
RECREATING    -- xfs on /dev/loop0
PLATFORM      -- Linux/ppc64le xxx 5.14.0-305.el9.ppc64le #1 SMP Thu Apr 27 09:11:51 EDT 2023
MKFS_OPTIONS  -- -f -f -bsize=65536 /dev/loop1
MOUNT_OPTIONS -- -o context=system_u:object_r:root_t:s0 /dev/loop1 /mnt/scratch

xfs/191 1s ...  1s
Ran: xfs/191

SECTION       -- xfs_4k
=========================
Ran: xfs/191

SECTION       -- xfs_64k
=========================
Ran: xfs/191

Since the problem described in this bug report should be
resolved in a recent advisory, it has been closed with a
resolution of ERRATA.

For information on the advisory (xfsprogs bug fix and enhancement update), and where to find the updated
files, follow the link below.

If the solution does not work for you, open a new bug report.

https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2023:6618