Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] Linux POSIX file system test suite

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

 



On Fri, Apr 04, 2008 at 10:33:30AM +1000, David Chinner wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 03, 2008 at 12:29:47AM +0300, Szabolcs Szakacsits wrote:
> >   The test must be run as root user and requires a few basic Perl modules.
> 
> And openssl, it appears.
> 
> >   # prove -r /path/to/fstest/
> 
> The current xfs-dev tree:
> 
> Failed Test                    Stat Wstat Total Fail  Failed  List of Failed
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> /root/posix/tests/chown/00.t                171    2   1.17%  84 88
> /root/posix/tests/symlink/02.t                7    2  28.57%  6-7
> Failed 2/184 test scripts, 98.91% okay. 4/1950 subtests failed, 99.79% okay.

Symlink tests 6 and 7:

expect 0 symlink ${name256} ${n0}
expect 0 unlink ${n0}

Test 6 is failing with ENAMETOOLONG
Test 7 is failing (correctly) with ENOENT because test 6 failed.

So there's only one failure here, and that is that that we're rejecting
${name256} as too long. I think that getname() is doing this. Seems sane
to me to disallow symlinking to pathnames that can't be constructed,
even if POSIX apparently allows it.


Chown tests 84 and 88:

Test 84 appears to be checking the result of test 83:

expect 0 -u 65534 -g 65533,65532 chown ${n0} 65534 65532
case "${os}" in
Linux)
        expect 06555,65534,65532 lstat ${n0} mode,uid,gid
        ;;
*)
        expect 0555,65534,65532 lstat ${n0} mode,uid,gid
        ;;
esac

And running these manually I get:

# /root/posix/fstest -u 65534 -g 65533,65532 chown z 65534 65532
changing groups to 65533,65532
changing uid to 65534
0
# /root/posix/fstest lstat z mode,uid,gid
0555,65534,65532

Which matches the "non-Linux" output. Looks like bits 06000 are
the set-uid and set-gid bits. Ok, Posix says:

"If the chown() function is successfully invoked on a file that is
not a regular file and one or more of the S_IXUSR, S_IXGRP, or
S_IXOTH bits of the file mode are set, the set-user-ID and
set-group-ID bits may be cleared."

So, either result is valid. Hence i suggest that test 84 and test 88
(same failure) are special cased to "ext3" behaviour.

That means XFS is not failing any tests at all.

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
Principal Engineer
SGI Australian Software Group
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

[Index of Archives]     [Linux Ext4 Filesystem]     [Union Filesystem]     [Filesystem Testing]     [Ceph Users]     [Ecryptfs]     [AutoFS]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux Cachefs]     [Reiser Filesystem]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]     [CEPH Development]
  Powered by Linux