On Tue, Jan 06, 2026 at 05:32:29PM -0800, Caleb Sander Mateos wrote: > On Tue, Jan 6, 2026 at 4:21 PM Ming Lei <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jan 06, 2026 at 09:15:44AM -0800, Caleb Sander Mateos wrote: > > > On Tue, Jan 6, 2026 at 6:10 AM Ming Lei <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 05, 2026 at 05:57:51PM -0700, Caleb Sander Mateos wrote: > > > > > Add test case loop_08 to verify the ublk integrity data flow. It uses > > > > > the kublk loop target to create a ublk device with integrity on top of > > > > > backing data and integrity files. It then writes to the whole device > > > > > with fio configured to generate integrity data. Then it reads back the > > > > > whole device with fio configured to verify the integrity data. > > > > > It also verifies that injected guard, reftag, and apptag corruptions > > > > > are > > > > > correctly detected. > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Caleb Sander Mateos <[email protected]> > > > > > --- > > > > > tools/testing/selftests/ublk/Makefile | 1 + > > > > > tools/testing/selftests/ublk/test_loop_08.sh | 111 > > > > > +++++++++++++++++++ > > > > > 2 files changed, 112 insertions(+) > > > > > create mode 100755 tools/testing/selftests/ublk/test_loop_08.sh > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/ublk/Makefile > > > > > b/tools/testing/selftests/ublk/Makefile > > > > > index bfd68ae64142..ab745443fd58 100644 > > > > > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/ublk/Makefile > > > > > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/ublk/Makefile > > > > > @@ -33,10 +33,11 @@ TEST_PROGS += test_loop_02.sh > > > > > TEST_PROGS += test_loop_03.sh > > > > > TEST_PROGS += test_loop_04.sh > > > > > TEST_PROGS += test_loop_05.sh > > > > > TEST_PROGS += test_loop_06.sh > > > > > TEST_PROGS += test_loop_07.sh > > > > > +TEST_PROGS += test_loop_08.sh > > > > > TEST_PROGS += test_stripe_01.sh > > > > > TEST_PROGS += test_stripe_02.sh > > > > > TEST_PROGS += test_stripe_03.sh > > > > > TEST_PROGS += test_stripe_04.sh > > > > > TEST_PROGS += test_stripe_05.sh > > > > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/ublk/test_loop_08.sh > > > > > b/tools/testing/selftests/ublk/test_loop_08.sh > > > > > new file mode 100755 > > > > > index 000000000000..ca289cfb2ad4 > > > > > --- /dev/null > > > > > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/ublk/test_loop_08.sh > > > > > @@ -0,0 +1,111 @@ > > > > > +#!/bin/bash > > > > > +# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 > > > > > + > > > > > +. "$(cd "$(dirname "$0")" && pwd)"/test_common.sh > > > > > + > > > > > +if ! _have_program fio; then > > > > > + exit $UBLK_SKIP_CODE > > > > > +fi > > > > > + > > > > > +fio_version=$(fio --version) > > > > > +if [[ "$fio_version" =~ fio-[0-9]+\.[0-9]+$ ]]; then > > > > > + echo "Requires development fio version with > > > > > https://github.com/axboe/fio/pull/1992"; > > > > > + exit $UBLK_SKIP_CODE > > > > > +fi > > > > > + > > > > > +TID=loop_08 > > > > > + > > > > > +_prep_test "loop" "end-to-end integrity" > > > > > + > > > > > +_create_backfile 0 256M > > > > > +_create_backfile 1 32M # 256M * (64 integrity bytes / 512 data bytes) > > > > > +integrity_params="--integrity_capable --integrity_reftag > > > > > + --metadata_size 64 --pi_offset 56 --csum_type > > > > > t10dif" > > > > > +dev_id=$(_add_ublk_dev -t loop -u $integrity_params > > > > > "${UBLK_BACKFILES[@]}") > > > > > > > > I tried above setting: > > > > > > > > ./kublk add -t loop --integrity_capable --integrity_reftag > > > > --metadata_size 64 --pi_offset 56 --csum_type t10dif --foreground -u > > > > /dev/sdb /dev/sdc > > > > dev id 1: nr_hw_queues 2 queue_depth 128 block size 512 dev_capacity > > > > 8388608 > > > > max rq size 1048576 daemon pid 38295 flags 0x160c2 state LIVE > > > > queue 0: affinity(0 ) > > > > queue 1: affinity(8 ) > > > > > > > > However, IO error is always triggered: > > > > > > > > [ 9202.316382] ublkb1: ref tag error at location 0 (rcvd 128) > > > > [ 9202.317171] Buffer I/O error on dev ublkb1, logical block 0, async > > > > page read > > > > > > Hmm, what are the initial contents of /dev/sdc? It looks like they are > > > nonzero, as the reftag being read for logical block 0 is 128 rather > > > than the expected 0 (the reftag would be read from bytes 60 to 63 of > > > /dev/sdc). In general, though, the partition scan may be expected to > > > fail the bio-integrity-auto checks if the integrity data hasn't been > > > initialized. I don't think this is an issue, since the partition scan > > > is looking for a partition table but there's no guarantee that one > > > exists. > > > You can disable the kernel integrity checks if you want by writing 0 > > > to /sys/block/ublkb1/integrity/read_verify. However, I'm not sure it's > > > possible to do this soon enough to take effect before the partition > > > scan. > > > We could also use the UBLK_F_NO_AUTO_PART_SCAN feature, once it lands, > > > to suppress the partition scan and these error messages. > > > > UBLK_F_NO_AUTO_PART_SCAN can't avoid the following read failure. > > Are you saying the reads aren't coming from the partition scan? What > else would be issuing reads to the ublk device before fio is run on > it?
I mean people can run fio read after disk is setup, or udev may read disk in background. > > > > > I guess the issue can be avoided by adding small superblock to the meta > > data file, then format it in the 1st time when superblock doesn't exist. > > Not sure the complexity of a superblock is necessary. Could just > initialize all the protection information with valid reftags and guard > tags. For verification purpose, the superblock can include only the info if PI meta file is formatted or not. But it isn't a big deal if the meta backfile can be formatted with tags in the specified setting. > > > > > This way will make it usable from test/verify purpose. > > I'm still not following why it's not "usable" currently. Only blocks > that have been written to (with protection information generated by > fio or the kernel) can be read back, but that's how block devices are > expected to be used. It seems fine to me for test purposes. > test_loop_08.sh writes to the full ublk device before verifying it, so > it shouldn't encounter any invalid reftags. It triggers READ error easily, and will cause noisy report, just like what I did... Also you can't run FS test workload... Thanks, Ming
