[Note: this mail contains only information for Linux kernel regression tracking. Mails like these contain '#forregzbot' in the subject to make then easy to spot and filter out. The author also tried to remove most or all individuals from the list of recipients to spare them the hassle.] On 27.12.22 16:27, J. R. Okajima wrote: > > Christian Brauner: >> This series passes the LTP and xfstests suites without any regressions. For >> xfstests the following combinations were tested: > > I've found a behaviour got changed from v6.1 to v6.2-rc1 on ext3 (ext4). Thanks for the report. To be sure below issue doesn't fall through the cracks unnoticed, I'm adding it to regzbot, my Linux kernel regression tracking bot: #regzbot ^introduced v6.1..v6.2-rc1 #regzbot title fs: ext3/acl: behavior changed (ls and getact show slightly different output) #regzbot ignore-activity Ciao, Thorsten (wearing his 'the Linux kernel's regression tracker' hat) P.S.: As the Linux kernel's regression tracker I deal with a lot of reports and sometimes miss something important when writing mails like this. If that's the case here, don't hesitate to tell me in a public reply, it's in everyone's interest to set the public record straight. > ---------------------------------------- > on v6.1 > + ls -ld /dev/shm/rw/hd-test/newdir > drwxrwsr-x 2 nobody nogroup 1024 Dec 27 14:46 /dev/shm/rw/hd-test/newdir > > + getfacl -d /dev/shm/rw/hd-test/newdir > # file: dev/shm/rw/hd-test/newdir > # owner: nobody > # group: nogroup > # flags: -s- > > ---------------------------------------- > on v6.2-rc1 > + ls -ld /dev/shm/rw/hd-test/newdir > drwxrwsr-x+ 2 nobody nogroup 1024 Dec 27 23:51 /dev/shm/rw/hd-test/newdir > > + getfacl -d /dev/shm/rw/hd-test/newdir > # file: dev/shm/rw/hd-test/newdir > # owner: nobody > # group: nogroup > # flags: -s- > user::rwx > user:root:rwx > group::r-x > mask::rwx > other::r-x > > ---------------------------------------- > > - in the output from 'ls -l', the extra '+' appears > - in the output from 'getfacl -d', some lines are appended > - in those lines, I am not sure whether 'user:root:rwx' is correct or > not. Even it is correct, getfacl on v6.1 didn't produce such lines. > > Is this change intentional? > In other words, is this patch series for a bugfix? > > > J. R. Okajima
