On 7/11/13 1:28 PM, Carlos Maiolino wrote:
>>> generic/313 - output mismatch (see
>>> --- tests/generic/313.out 2013-07-08 16:27:41.787710646 -0500
>>> +++ /root/xfstests/results/generic/313.out.bad 2013-07-08
>>> 16:47:46.052683735 -0500
>>> @@ -1,3 +1,3 @@
>>> QA output created by 313
>>> -drwxr-sr-x. TEST_DIR/313-dir/subdir
>>> +drwxr-sr-x TEST_DIR/313-dir/subdir
>>> drwxrwsr-x+ TEST_DIR/313-dir/subdir2
>>> (Run 'diff -u tests/generic/313.out
>>> /root/xfstests/results/generic/313.out.bad' to see the entire diff)
>>> Looks like there could be a problem with ls? Have you seen that?
>> Actually I don't think this is a problem, but the way newer `ls` versions are
>> displaying the object permissions (the 'dot' at the end of the permissions,
>> indicating there are no extra attributes).
>> I'm going to take a look on what's going on, but I still believe it's just a
>> matter of add the 'dot' to the xfstests correct output.
>> I had this same problem when testing my patch and needed to fix it locally,
>> missed to warn you guys, my apologies
> Just a matter of information:
> From coreutils:
> commit b3677e5e383103bf1764b2c8a9329b1c17934b24
> Author: Jim Meyering <meyering@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Wed Apr 2 22:26:45 2008 +0200
> ls: use '.' (not +) as SELinux-only alt. access flag in ls -l output
> So, this test is selinux dependent, it will provide different outputs whether
> the system has selinux enabled or not.
> Since the test itself creates their own directories, checking if the selinux
> enabled or not and checking the proper output depending on selinux activity
> should avoid false positives on this test. I.e. if the selinux is enabled, the
> `ls -l` output will print the 'dot' at the end of the permissions, otherwise,
> nothing will be printed and Eric's test will pass without problem.
Hm, I thought we always mounted with a global selinux context, and therefore
wouldn't get these differences (i.e. no on-disk selinux attrs should be created)
> I think this is something worth to mention on xfstests README or some other
> documentation, mainly because any kind of test like this, but done with the
> TEST_DEV might be even worst since we don't recreate the filesystem while
> TEST_DEV, so, objects there can be created with selinux attrs or not (if
> when selinux is disabled) and have the attributes added later.
It'd be better to just add a filter if we need it.
But I'd like to know why we need it, I thought the global context made these
problems go away...
Guess I'll go look...
> I'm probably being too paranoid here talking about the TEST_DEV, but, I
> it was worth to mention.