xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] xfstests: add specific test for default ACL inheritance

To: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfstests: add specific test for default ACL inheritance
From: Filipe David Manana <fdmanana@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 16:14:30 +0100
Cc: "linux-btrfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <linux-btrfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, "dsterba@xxxxxxx" <dsterba@xxxxxxx>, Josef Bacik <jbacik@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=oGdgSVaKuysVBJ2UImM7KgTuEz6nhCNFiuyFJaT7pPQ=; b=M8OoijEVysf1tOcYQ4dcMMn76K/yL3hqRz5dzSm7Ni0ZvMEf9Tk40S9dU+3lxuWy56 Tx0yvfgpBNxzLAzPbCRZD+iX9Dcum4Yy8IbEPW0L/PovJrvGSdhVqP1xshHtFMJuEGba 88bTTaE876HZoqBWm/Kq6fddqOH5gBZu/rODDOMzJzaW8hXtU4SKNmQzFv++eTHMgpjw zx9hm8PYiU9ce8w6PmqN1OOkix/7iJNMhexRaqtC8STfIIzZAN35APL3c/LLyULkWTYX bwtiigKzu02yFIFmrhixX6aOjH8wNyaXLHsUzLBZzY3wpeliHP3t/dGATP3LAR8CFqDg mvpw==
In-reply-to: <525EAC5F.3040201@xxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <1381932296-14674-1-git-send-email-fdmanana@xxxxxxxxx> <525EAC5F.3040201@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: fdmanana@xxxxxxxxx
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 4:10 PM, Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 10/16/13 9:04 AM, Filipe David Borba Manana wrote:
>> This test is motivated by an issue found by a btrfs user, addressed
>> and described by the following GNU/Linux kernel patch:
>>
>> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/3046931/
>
> Hi Filipe, thanks for the patch.
>
> Usually we don't want to add new, possibly-failing cases to old tests;
> that makes it harder to identify when the code regressed vs. when
> the test changed to test new things.
>
> It would be better to just copy the framework of tests/shared/051
> to a new test in shared/ and test only this new inheritance
> problem.

Ok, I wasn't aware of that logic, which makes sense.

>
> Also, I'm confused about this hunk:
>
>> @@ -345,7 +345,12 @@ chacl $acl2 largeaclfile
>>  getfacl --numeric largeaclfile | _filter_aces
>>
>>  echo "1 above xfs acl max"
>> -chacl $acl3 largeaclfile
>> +if [ "$FSTYP" != "btrfs" ]; then
>> +     chacl $acl3 largeaclfile
>> +else
>> +     echo 'chacl: cannot set access acl on "largeaclfile": Invalid argument'
>> +fi
>> +
>>  getfacl --numeric largeaclfile | _filter_aces
>>
>>  echo "use 16 aces"
>
> What's that about?

That chacl command succeeds on btrfs, which makes the test fail. Seems
to rely on some xfs specific limit.
By moving this test into a new file, that hack is no longer needed.

Thanks Eric.

>
> Thanks,
> -Eric
>



-- 
Filipe David Manana,

"Reasonable men adapt themselves to the world.
 Unreasonable men adapt the world to themselves.
 That's why all progress depends on unreasonable men."

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