On Sun, Apr 25, 2021 at 04:45:05PM +0800, Eryu Guan wrote: > On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 01:15:39PM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote: > > From: Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Add a test to verify that setting a v3 fscap that is valid in an > > ancestor user namespace works. > > The subject is not clear which test it updates, I can only know it's > generic/633 that calls idmapped-mounts binary to do the test. Right, sorry. Will add that. > > > > > Cc: fstests@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx> > > Signed-off-by: Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@xxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > src/idmapped-mounts/idmapped-mounts.c | 56 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > 1 file changed, 56 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/src/idmapped-mounts/idmapped-mounts.c b/src/idmapped-mounts/idmapped-mounts.c > > index 870a8fe7..4e3252ca 100644 > > --- a/src/idmapped-mounts/idmapped-mounts.c > > +++ b/src/idmapped-mounts/idmapped-mounts.c > > @@ -3193,6 +3193,62 @@ static int fscaps_idmapped_mounts_in_userns(void) > > goto out; > > } > > > > + /* > > + * Verify we can set an v3 fscap for real root this was regressed at > > + * some point. Make sure this doesn't happen again! > > + */ > > We usually don't add new test cases to existing tests, as that may > introduce new failures and let people think there's a regression, then > find out it's the new case introduced the failure. Hm, okay. I'm pretty sure that I'll grow the idmapped mount test-suite quite a bit more so I need to think about how to make this easily extensible. I want the ability to use the binary itself to run all tests. So I may just introduce flags to allow for running specific tests or subsets of tests such as: idmapped-mounts --fscaps --acl > > But this test was just merged last week, and the test is closely related > to existing cases and could re-use the test framework/setups, so I think > it's fine to add this case. > > But as above comment said, this new cases is targeted to a regression > happened previously, I think it'd be better to put it in a seperate test > function, not folded into an existing test function. > > And is there a commit that fixed the mentioned regression? Reference it > in the comments would help people find the correct fix, if there's any. That is an annoyingly convoluted story involving a buggy "fix" a revert and then a proper fix. But I'll sure add details. Thank you! Christian
