| Message ID | 20240306091935.4090399-3-zlang@kernel.org (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | fstests: fix io_uring testing | expand |
On Wed, Mar 06, 2024 at 05:19:34PM +0800, Zorro Lang wrote: > 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 <zlang@kernel.org> > --- > ltp/fsstress.c | 15 +++++++++++++-- > 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/ltp/fsstress.c b/ltp/fsstress.c > index 482395c4..9c75f27b 100644 > --- a/ltp/fsstress.c > +++ b/ltp/fsstress.c > @@ -762,12 +762,23 @@ 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, might due to sysctl kernel.io_uring_disabled isn't 0, "might be due to..." With that fixed, Reviewed-by: Darrick J. Wong <djwong@kernel.org> --D > + * or some selinux policies, etc. > + * Other errors are fatal. > + */ > if ((c = io_uring_queue_init(URING_ENTRIES, &ring, 0)) != 0) { > if (c == -ENOSYS) { > have_io_uring = false; > + if (verbose) > + printf("io_uring isn't supported by kernel\n"); > + } else if (c == -EPERM) { > + have_io_uring = false; > + if (verbose) > + printf("io_uring isn't allowed, check io_uring_disabled sysctl or selinux policy\n"); > } else { > - fprintf(stderr, "io_uring_queue_init failed\n"); > + fprintf(stderr, "io_uring_queue_init failed, errno=%d\n", c); > exit(1); > } > } > -- > 2.43.0 > >
Zorro Lang <zlang@kernel.org> writes: > 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 <zlang@kernel.org> > --- > ltp/fsstress.c | 15 +++++++++++++-- > 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/ltp/fsstress.c b/ltp/fsstress.c > index 482395c4..9c75f27b 100644 > --- a/ltp/fsstress.c > +++ b/ltp/fsstress.c > @@ -762,12 +762,23 @@ 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, might due to sysctl kernel.io_uring_disabled isn't 0, > + * or some selinux policies, etc. > + * Other errors are fatal. > + */ > if ((c = io_uring_queue_init(URING_ENTRIES, &ring, 0)) != 0) { > if (c == -ENOSYS) { > have_io_uring = false; > + if (verbose) > + printf("io_uring isn't supported by kernel\n"); > + } else if (c == -EPERM) { > + have_io_uring = false; > + if (verbose) > + printf("io_uring isn't allowed, check io_uring_disabled sysctl or selinux policy\n"); > } else { > - fprintf(stderr, "io_uring_queue_init failed\n"); > + fprintf(stderr, "io_uring_queue_init failed, errno=%d\n", c); I think you want to use -c here, right? Other than that: Reviewed-by: Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@redhat.com>
On Wed, Mar 06, 2024 at 07:55:26AM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > On Wed, Mar 06, 2024 at 05:19:34PM +0800, Zorro Lang wrote: > > 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 <zlang@kernel.org> > > --- > > ltp/fsstress.c | 15 +++++++++++++-- > > 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/ltp/fsstress.c b/ltp/fsstress.c > > index 482395c4..9c75f27b 100644 > > --- a/ltp/fsstress.c > > +++ b/ltp/fsstress.c > > @@ -762,12 +762,23 @@ 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, might due to sysctl kernel.io_uring_disabled isn't 0, > > "might be due to..." Hahaha, as native english speaker so :) > > With that fixed, > Reviewed-by: Darrick J. Wong <djwong@kernel.org> Thanks, I'll change below if...else... to switch... as you suggested. > > --D > > > + * or some selinux policies, etc. > > + * Other errors are fatal. > > + */ > > if ((c = io_uring_queue_init(URING_ENTRIES, &ring, 0)) != 0) { > > if (c == -ENOSYS) { > > have_io_uring = false; > > + if (verbose) > > + printf("io_uring isn't supported by kernel\n"); > > + } else if (c == -EPERM) { > > + have_io_uring = false; > > + if (verbose) > > + printf("io_uring isn't allowed, check io_uring_disabled sysctl or selinux policy\n"); > > } else { > > - fprintf(stderr, "io_uring_queue_init failed\n"); > > + fprintf(stderr, "io_uring_queue_init failed, errno=%d\n", c); > > exit(1); > > } > > } > > -- > > 2.43.0 > > > > >
On Wed, Mar 06, 2024 at 10:57:08AM -0500, Jeff Moyer wrote: > Zorro Lang <zlang@kernel.org> writes: > > > 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 <zlang@kernel.org> > > --- > > ltp/fsstress.c | 15 +++++++++++++-- > > 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/ltp/fsstress.c b/ltp/fsstress.c > > index 482395c4..9c75f27b 100644 > > --- a/ltp/fsstress.c > > +++ b/ltp/fsstress.c > > @@ -762,12 +762,23 @@ 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, might due to sysctl kernel.io_uring_disabled isn't 0, > > + * or some selinux policies, etc. > > + * Other errors are fatal. > > + */ > > if ((c = io_uring_queue_init(URING_ENTRIES, &ring, 0)) != 0) { > > if (c == -ENOSYS) { > > have_io_uring = false; > > + if (verbose) > > + printf("io_uring isn't supported by kernel\n"); > > + } else if (c == -EPERM) { > > + have_io_uring = false; > > + if (verbose) > > + printf("io_uring isn't allowed, check io_uring_disabled sysctl or selinux policy\n"); > > } else { > > - fprintf(stderr, "io_uring_queue_init failed\n"); > > + fprintf(stderr, "io_uring_queue_init failed, errno=%d\n", c); > > I think you want to use -c here, right? Sure, will change that, thanks! > > Other than that: > > Reviewed-by: Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@redhat.com> > >
diff --git a/ltp/fsstress.c b/ltp/fsstress.c index 482395c4..9c75f27b 100644 --- a/ltp/fsstress.c +++ b/ltp/fsstress.c @@ -762,12 +762,23 @@ 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, might due to sysctl kernel.io_uring_disabled isn't 0, + * or some selinux policies, etc. + * Other errors are fatal. + */ if ((c = io_uring_queue_init(URING_ENTRIES, &ring, 0)) != 0) { if (c == -ENOSYS) { have_io_uring = false; + if (verbose) + printf("io_uring isn't supported by kernel\n"); + } else if (c == -EPERM) { + have_io_uring = false; + if (verbose) + printf("io_uring isn't allowed, check io_uring_disabled sysctl or selinux policy\n"); } else { - fprintf(stderr, "io_uring_queue_init failed\n"); + fprintf(stderr, "io_uring_queue_init failed, errno=%d\n", c); exit(1); } }
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 <zlang@kernel.org> --- ltp/fsstress.c | 15 +++++++++++++-- 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)