Re: [PATCH 2/3] tests: Only use privileged mode if Qemu user and group exists

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 12:52:36PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 01:47:14PM +0200, Martin Kletzander wrote:
On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 12:49:25PM +0200, Guido Günther wrote:
>On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 10:09:59AM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>>On Mon, Apr 07, 2014 at 04:40:24PM -0600, Eric Blake wrote:
>>> On 04/07/2014 02:02 AM, Guido Günther wrote:
>>> > When building packages in a clean chroot the QEMU_USER and QEMU_GROUP
>>> > don't exist making VirQemuDriverConfigNew fail with privileged=true.
>>> >
>>> > Avoid that by not requiring priviliged mode and skipping tests that need
>>>
>>> s/priviliged/privileged/
>>>
>>> > it.
>>> > ---
>>> >  tests/qemuxml2argvtest.c | 24 ++++++++++++++++--------
>>> >  1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> Seems like this is what avoids the fail pointed out in 1/3.  It still
>>> feels fishy that our testsuite is that dependent on the system (ideally,
>>> we'd provide a way to mock things up so that creating the config file
>>> NEVER fails when run from the testsuite, even if the uid doesn't exist -
>>> because we shouldn't be probing the live system, only our mockups).  I'd
>>> wait for a second opinion on whether this patch is papering over a
>>> bigger problem of depending on the current system state, or whether it
>>> is an acceptable way to avoid the issue without investing the effort to
>>> tackle at the uid lookup level.
>>
>>IMHO we should be passing  privileged == false unconditionally, so that
>>we always skip any magic username lookups.
>
>I would have done that but Martin's 29151830e468f1a9d8006a62702591958a4e3481
>did the opposite, so o.k. to revert that?

Reverting that will make *tune tests fail.  We could, however, create
our own test config instead of virQEMUDriverConfigNew() or add a
parameter to it which will decide on what to do, the least being:

What about passing 'false' to ConfigNew() but then manually
set  'cfg->privileged = true' on the object we get back.


That could work.  All tests passed on my setup like that.  And it
doesn't seem weird since we're playing with the config a lot in the
tests.

Martin

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list

[Index of Archives]     [Virt Tools]     [Libvirt Users]     [Lib OS Info]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Big List of Linux Books]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]