On Wed, 2018-01-03 at 14:16 +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Tue, Jan 02, 2018 at 09:52:03PM -0500, Mimi Zohar wrote: > > On Tue, 2018-01-02 at 17:40 -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > > [might as well cc linux-xfs] > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 12:22:37AM +0200, Dmitry Kasatkin wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > Could I ask FS maintainers to test IMA with this patch additionally > > > > and provide ack/tested. > > > > We tested but may be you have and some special testing. > > > > > > Super-late to this party, but unless xfstests has automated tests to > > > set up IMA on top of an existing filesystem then I most likely have no > > > idea /how/ to test IMA. I did a quick grep of xfstests git and I don't > > > see anything IMA-related. > > > > Back in June I posted a simple xfstests IMA-appraisal test (https://ma > > rc.info/?l=linux-fsdevel&m=149703820814885&w=4). > > That's a really, really basic test and it doesn't exercise the > problematic direct IO path this patch fixes problems with. nor does > it exercise the chmod path, or try to trigger deadlocks or other > conditions through all the other paths that can trigger IMA actions > and or failures (e.g. ENOSPC). IOWs, we need a lot more than a > "hello world" test to be able to verify filesystems interact with > IMA properly. e.g. how does it behave at ENOSPC? True, but for now we were looking for some basic testing - opening a file and calculating the file hash - on different filesystems, not the direct-IO path in particular. Expanding the IMA-appraisal xfstests is high on my "todo" list. Mimi
