From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 2/3] selftests: Add test of O_BENEATH & openat(2) Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2014 11:05:25 +1100 Message-ID: <20141212000524.GI24183@dastard> References: <1415094884-18349-1-git-send-email-drysdale@google.com> <1415094884-18349-3-git-send-email-drysdale@google.com> <20141111053641.GR23575@dastard> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-api-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: David Drysdale Cc: "linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , Alexander Viro , Kees Cook , "Eric W. Biederman" , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Meredydd Luff , Will Drewry , Jorge Lucangeli Obes , Ricky Zhou , Lee Campbell , Julien Tinnes , Mike Depinet , James Morris , Andy Lutomirski , Paolo Bonzini , Paul Moore , Christoph Hellwig , Linux API , LSM List , fstests-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-api@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 02:19:41PM +0000, David Drysdale wrote: > On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 5:36 AM, Dave Chinner wrote: > > [cc fstests-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org] > > > > On Tue, Nov 04, 2014 at 09:54:43AM +0000, David Drysdale wrote: > >> Add simple tests of openat(2) variations, including examples that > >> check the new O_BENEATH flag. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: David Drysdale > > > > Wouldn't this be better added to fstests? That's the regression > > test suite used by filesystem developers and most distro QA > > organisations and where the fs developers aggregate all their new > > regression tests. > > > > IMO, the fewer places we aggregate VFS/filesystem tests the better. > > I really don't think the kernel tree is the best place for adding > > VFS behavioural tests because it has none of the infrastructure > > around it to test arbitrary filesystems and configurations and hence > > is not particularly useful to the people whoa re likely to notice > > and care about fs regression tests suddenly breaking. > > > > As an example, the recent renameat() syscall additions (e.g. > > RENAME_EXCHANGE, RENAME_NOREPLACE) have unit tests in fstests, so > > these new O_BENEATH tests should really follow the same model... > > Fair enough, that makes sense -- I've now got a version of the selftest > running within xfstests (git://oss.sgi.com/xfs/cmds/xfstests.git is the > master repo, right?). Or git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/fs/xfs/xfstests-dev.git, which is where I typically update first and push dev branches to. > Given that xfstests is independent of the kernel, what's the expected > way to deal with flags (or syscalls) that are only in specific kernel > versions? At the moment I've just got a primitive override at > compile time (#ifndef O_BENEATH #define O_BENEATH ...), and > then the test will fail at run-time against an older kernel -- is there a > need for anything more sophisticated? (And if so, are there any > examples I can crib from?) See the code in the src/renameat2.c for an example of how syscalls and their flags are added prior to their being kernel and userspace header support. Also, note the "-t" CLI option for the "test" option in that little program. This is used by the _require_renameat2 function that the tests that make use of this functionality call to determine if th etest shoul dbe run on this kernel or not. > Also, is there an archive of the fstests@ mailing list somewhere? I wish. I've tried to get it archived on all the major sites like marc, spinics, etc repeatedly since the list was created and not a single one of them have responded to any of my requests, let alone started to archive the list.... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david-FqsqvQoI3Ljby3iVrkZq2A@public.gmane.org