xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH V2] xfstests: generic/313, test sgid inheritance on subdirs

To: Carlos Maiolino <cmaiolino@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] xfstests: generic/313, test sgid inheritance on subdirs
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 13:53:36 -0500
Cc: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx>, Ben Myers <bpm@xxxxxxx>, xfs-oss <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <51DEFABC.8020104@xxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <51A68175.9020202@xxxxxxxxxx> <51A7B03E.2080909@xxxxxxxxxxx> <20130612192320.GA12955@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20130708215151.GK20932@xxxxxxx> <20130711175315.GB10711@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20130711182829.GC10711@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <51DEFABC.8020104@xxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130620 Thunderbird/17.0.7
On 7/11/13 1:34 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> On 7/11/13 1:28 PM, Carlos Maiolino wrote:

...

>> 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 
>> is
>> 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)


Ok, somehow it really is mounted w/o the context when the test executes.
I'm not sure why yet, but fixing that *should* fix the problem, I think.

-Eric

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>