Re: [PATCH 0/3] nfs-utils: add testing infrastructure to nfs-utils (try #3)

[Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com>]

On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 00:05:56 -0500
"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org> wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 07, 2010 at 09:18:32AM -0500, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 15:33:13 -0500
> > "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Wed, Jan 06, 2010 at 03:22:55PM -0500, Chuck Lever wrote:
> > > > My original idea was that this facility would be a set of smaller unit  
> > > > tests.  Since some of statd/sm-notify is now broken out into libraries, I 
> > > > think that makes it a little easier to craft targeted tests that don't 
> > > > require a full-blown statd running to carry out (Of course, that's 
> > > > speculation; I could be wrong, and Jeff has kindly set up the code for us 
> > > > to test this theory!).
> > > >
> > > > The old code has a statd simulator that doesn't require root, and uses  
> > > > its own RPC program number.  It might be reasonable to adopt that  
> > > > approach instead of using the real statd, for some test cases.
> > > 
> > > Like I say, it might be nice to be able to add even more intrusive tests
> > > (e.g. that modify the exports and then test the results over "lo" with
> > > the kernel client), so I'm actually happy Jeff says he's not bending
> > > over backwards to make the tests unprivileged.
> > > 
> > 
> > The root privs problem is definitely a valid concern.
> > 
> > After thinking about this problem I think the thing to do is
> > probably to create a "run as root" script that starts up statd (for
> > now) and other daemons (eventually). make check can then prompt the
> > user to inspect and run that script as root and then hit return when
> > it's ok to proceed.
> > 
> > That should allow someone to run most of the actual test code as an
> > unprivileged user. I'll plan to incorporate something like this in the
> > next respin.
> 
> That sounds complicated.  And, as I said above, we might some day like
> to include tests where the privileged stuff makes up the body of the
> test.
> 
> Why not just "the tests you are about to run need root privileges, and
> will start and stop statd; continue (y/n)?"
> 

Ok. Most statd tests probably won't need root privs, but it makes sense
that other tests eventually will. That's certainly a simpler approach.

-- 
Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com>