On Mon, Dec 4, 2023 at 7:52 PM Zorro Lang <zlang@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 04, 2023 at 07:09:08PM +0200, Amir Goldstein wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 4, 2023 at 6:58 PM Zorro Lang <zlang@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 22, 2023 at 05:20:13PM +0200, Amir Goldstein wrote: > > > > From: Alexander Larsson <alexl@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > The test checks the expectaion from old kernels that set/get of > > > > trusted.overlay.* xattrs is not supported on an overlayfs filesystem. > > > > > > > > New kernels support set/get xattr of trusted.overlay.* xattrs, so adapt > > > > the test to check that either both set and get work on new kernel, or > > > > neither work on old kernel. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Alexander Larsson <alexl@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Signed-off-by: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > --- > > > > > > > > Zorro, > > > > > > > > Per your request on v1 [1], I've added a helper to check escaped overlay > > > > xattrs support. > > > > > > > > The helper was taken from the patch that adds test overlay/084 [2], and > > > > re-factored, but other than that, overlay/084 itself is unchanged, so > > > > I am not re-posting it nor any of the other patches in the overlay tests > > > > for v6.7-rc1. > > > > > > > > Let me know if this works for you. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Amir. > > > > > > > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/fstests/20231116075250.ntopaswush4sn2qf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > > > [2] https://lore.kernel.org/fstests/20231114064857.1666718-2-amir73il@xxxxxxxxx/ > > > > > > > > common/overlay | 19 +++++++++++++++++++ > > > > tests/overlay/026 | 42 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------- > > > > tests/overlay/026.out | 2 -- > > > > 3 files changed, 48 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/common/overlay b/common/overlay > > > > index 7004187f..8f275228 100644 > > > > --- a/common/overlay > > > > +++ b/common/overlay > > > > @@ -201,6 +201,25 @@ _require_scratch_overlay_features() > > > > _scratch_unmount > > > > } > > > > > > > > +_check_scratch_overlay_xattr_escapes() > > > > +{ > > > > + local testfile=$1 > > > > + > > > > + touch $testfile > > > > + ! ($GETFATTR_PROG -n trusted.overlay.foo $testfile 2>&1 | grep -E -q "not (permitted|supported)") > > > > +} > > > > + > > > > +_require_scratch_overlay_xattr_escapes() > > > > +{ > > > > + _scratch_mkfs > /dev/null 2>&1 > > > > + _scratch_mount > > > > + > > > > + _check_scratch_overlay_xattr_escapes $SCRATCH_MNT/file || \ > > > > + _notrun "xattr escaping is not supported by overlay" > > > > + > > > > + _scratch_unmount > > > > +} > > > > + > > > > > > Hi Amir, > > > > > > Sorry for this late review, got a little busy on other things recently. > > > Won't this patch be conflict with another patchset which you/Alex have sent: > > > https://lore.kernel.org/fstests/20231114064857.1666718-2-amir73il@xxxxxxxxx/ > > > > > > So you'll rebase that patchset on this, right? > > > > I rebased and pushed to this branch: > > https://github.com/amir73il/xfstests/commits/overlayfs-devel > > > > If you want I can re-post the entire series, but really, the only change is > > the common/overlay chunk in the first patch which should be ignored. > > Hi Amir, > > I just tried, there're two _require_scratch_overlay_xattr_escapes() in > common/overlay [1]. Yes, as I said, the one from *this* patch is the correct one the other one is obsolete. > So please rebase and re-send that patchset, then I can > merge them easily and clearly. Ok. Sent v2. You should apply it on top of this patch. Thanks, Amir.
