Skip to content

Fix several raidz_test issues #17977

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Closed
wants to merge 4 commits into from
+21 −6
Closed

Fix several raidz_test issues #17977

Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
4 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
2cba99c
ZFS: Enable more logs for raidz_001_neg
amotin Nov 24, 2025
91dd365
raidz_test: Set io_offset reasonably
amotin Nov 24, 2025
a902ee7
raidz_test: Fix ZIO ABDs initialization
amotin Nov 24, 2025
0b8532a
raidz_test: Restore rand_data protection
amotin Nov 25, 2025
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
2 changes: 2 additions & 0 deletions cmd/raidz_test/raidz_test.c
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -848,6 +848,8 @@ main(int argc, char **argv)
err = run_test(NULL);
}

mprotect(rand_data, SPA_MAXBLOCKSIZE, PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE);
Copy link
Member

@robn robn Nov 28, 2025 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yeah, you're right about using mprotect() on memory obtained from libc (technically, wherever umem_alloc() got it from, which is kinda worse maybe?). POSIX explicitly says calling it on a pointer you didn't get from mmap() is unspecified, so.

I don't care for this PR, since we were already doing and your change is an improvement, but if you like we could just use an anonymous mapping:

diff --git a/cmd/raidz_test/raidz_test.c b/cmd/raidz_test/raidz_test.c
index 4839e909e4..eb1d6a562a 100644
--- a/cmd/raidz_test/raidz_test.c
+++ b/cmd/raidz_test/raidz_test.c
@@ -820,7 +820,8 @@ main(int argc, char **argv)
 	kernel_init(SPA_MODE_READ);
 
 	/* setup random data because rand() is not reentrant */
-	rand_data = (int *)umem_alloc(SPA_MAXBLOCKSIZE, UMEM_NOFAIL);
+	rand_data = (int *)mmap(NULL, SPA_MAXBLOCKSIZE, PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE,
+	    MAP_ANONYMOUS|MAP_PRIVATE, -1, 0);
 	srand((unsigned)time(NULL) * getpid());
 	for (i = 0; i < SPA_MAXBLOCKSIZE / sizeof (int); i++)
 		rand_data[i] = rand();
@@ -835,7 +836,7 @@ main(int argc, char **argv)
 		err = run_test(NULL);
 	}
 
-	umem_free(rand_data, SPA_MAXBLOCKSIZE);
+	munmap(rand_data, SPA_MAXBLOCKSIZE);
 	kernel_fini();
 
 	return (err);

Copy link
Contributor

@behlendorf behlendorf Dec 1, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yup, assuming using an anonymous mapping works as hoped this does seems preferable. Still I don't think we need to hold up this PR on that. We can always follow up with this.


umem_free(rand_data, SPA_MAXBLOCKSIZE);
kernel_fini();

Expand Down
Loading