xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: fdmanana@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfstests: add specific test for default ACL inheritance
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 10:19:03 -0500
Cc: Josef Bacik <jbacik@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, "dsterba@xxxxxxx" <dsterba@xxxxxxx>, "linux-btrfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <linux-btrfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <CAL3q7H6N3K7wda5Rm8OYS5a0QYYQr4MbXpxCpahuXVj+dnzozA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <1381932296-14674-1-git-send-email-fdmanana@xxxxxxxxx> <525EAC5F.3040201@xxxxxxxxxxx> <CAL3q7H6N3K7wda5Rm8OYS5a0QYYQr4MbXpxCpahuXVj+dnzozA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8
On 10/16/13 10:14 AM, Filipe David Manana wrote:
> 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.

Oh, if I'd read the context... ;)

>>>  echo "1 above xfs acl max"

and:

XFS_ACL_MAX_ENTRIES=25
num_aces_pre=`expr $XFS_ACL_MAX_ENTRIES - 1`
num_aces_post=`expr $XFS_ACL_MAX_ENTRIES + 1`

acl1=`_create_n_aces $num_aces_pre`
acl2=`_create_n_aces $XFS_ACL_MAX_ENTRIES`
acl3=`_create_n_aces $num_aces_post`

Sorry for not reading more.

interesting that it's a udf test too...

Ok, but right - it's testing an xfs specific limit.

Your new test can probably be generic, with a _require_acls
to skip the test on any fs w/o acl support.

Thanks,

-Eric
> Thanks Eric.
> 
>>
>> Thanks,
>> -Eric
>>
> 
> 
> 

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