Repository navigation
doc: describe the aggregate filesystem-shares coverage - #468
Merged
Pedro Henrique Penna (ppenna) merged 1 commit intoOct 10, 2026
Merged
Conversation
The filesystem-shares scenario now attaches three shares as the children of one aggregate on the single virtio-fs slot (d5888a6), but the validation chapter still described two shares with separate tags and a pre-boot rejection of three shares. Co-authored-by: Copilot <223556219+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🟢 Approval recommended
The documentation accurately reflects the referenced implementation and test behavior.
0 open findings
What changed in this PR
Updates validation documentation to accurately describe the current aggregate filesystem-shares microVM scenario.
Changes:
- Documents three shares on one virtio-fs aggregate.
- Describes access-policy, hard-link, rejection, and snapshot-restore coverage.
| File | Description |
|---|---|
doc/design/validation.md |
Aligns concurrent-share coverage with the current test scenario. |
🧠 Review effort: Balanced
💡 Add a code-review agent skill or configure MCP servers for context-aware, tailored reviews. Learn more in the docs.
Pedro Henrique Penna (ppenna)
deleted the
doc-sync/aggregate-share-coverage
branch
October 10, 2026 05:08
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Summary
Commit d5888a6 moved the
filesystem-sharesmicroVM scenario from two shares with separate virtio-fs tags to three children of one aggregate on the microVM's single virtio-fs slot, because the pinned OpenVMM no longer offers a second slot. The "Concurrent-share coverage" paragraph indoc/design/validation.mdstill described the old two-share scenario. This PR rewrites that paragraph to match the current scenario. It changes no other text.Changes
doc/design/validation.md, Concurrent-share coverage paragraph:_aggregate_argumentsandrun_filesystem_sharesinscripts/nvx_tools/microvm_tests.py(--mount-aggregate /run/nvx/sharesplus three--mount-childoptions);filesystem-shares.shchecks for only the0xd0001000slot andvirtfs_aggregate=1--mount-deny,--mount-allow, and--mount-writein_aggregate_arguments;filesystem-shares.shexit codes 54-57 and 63-67EROFSfrom OpenVMM for every mutation"EROFSfor mutations of the tool cache, keeps denied paths hidden, and refuses hard links between childrenfilesystem-shares.shexit codes 48 and 68-87--mount,--mountbeside an aggregate, overlapping children, and a relative denied path before bootrepeated-mount,overlapping-children,mount-and-aggregate, andrelative-denycases inrun_filesystem_shares--mount, fails before the guest resumesfilesystem-shares-snapshot.sh(the/workspace/journalfile descriptor); themissing-share,swapped-shares,renamed-share, andsingle-mountcases, which_expect_process_failureruns with the post-restore marker forbiddenOpenVMM pin:
7bf0ee28b826374a2d386067df0456b81bcae818. This is a design chapter, but the change describes the NVX-owned test scenario and does not change any claim about OpenVMM behavior.I kept the paragraph's existing name, "Concurrent-share coverage", and its level of detail rather than restructuring the chapter.
Follow-ups
These were left out to keep this PR to one topic or to avoid conflicts with open PRs:
scripts/setup/README.mdis documentation outsidedoc/. Moving it would require link edits indoc/setup.mdanddoc/ci.md, which open PRs test-microvm: pause and resume a microVM through OpenVMM state control #405 and Adopt bind-once microVM image slots #406 change, andscripts/test_nvx_tools.pyreferences its path. It should move after those PRs land, along with a matching test update.doc/openvmm-upstream-roadmap.mdis a dated planning snapshot. It records fork tip2728f33ea, but OpenVMM is now pinned at7bf0ee28. It needs either a refresh of the commit-to-PR mapping, which is far larger than this PR's budget, or a clear statement of the date it reflects.Validation
python -m unittest scripts.test_nvx_tools.CliTests scripts.test_performance.PerformanceTests: Ran 110 tests, OK (skipped=1).doc/design/validation.mdand in the files that link to it (doc/design.md,doc/contribute.md). It also confirmed that the changed file has one H1 and balanced code fences, and thatdoc/design.mdlinks every chapter indoc/design/. Result: OK.git diff --check: clean.python scripts\nvx.py verify: passed.doc/design/validation.md, so CI treats this PR as documentation-only.