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

Filipe David Manana fdmanana at gmail.com
Wed Oct 16 10:14:30 CDT 2013


On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 4:10 PM, Eric Sandeen <sandeen at sandeen.net> 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."



More information about the xfs mailing list