xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: Filipe David Borba Manana <fdmanana@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfstests: add specific test for default ACL inheritance
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 09:11:50 -0700
Cc: linux-btrfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, dsterba@xxxxxxx, jbacik@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <1381932296-14674-1-git-send-email-fdmanana@xxxxxxxxx>
References: <1381932296-14674-1-git-send-email-fdmanana@xxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 03:04:56PM +0100, 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:

Might be a little too nipicky, but there's no "GNU/Linux" kernel, it's
just Linux.

As for the test: thanks a lot for sending it a long here, but can you
please create a new testcase for the specific inheritance bug instead
of adding it to an existing test case?

>  # real QA test starts here
> -_supported_fs xfs udf
> +_supported_fs xfs udf btrfs

Of course enabling the existing tests for btrfs is still fine (although
it should be a second patch)

> -chacl $acl3 largeaclfile
> +if [ "$FSTYP" != "btrfs" ]; then
> +     chacl $acl3 largeaclfile
> +else
> +     echo 'chacl: cannot set access acl on "largeaclfile": Invalid argument'
> +fi

Does btrfs support unlimited ACLs?  If not we should test one above the
limit here.

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