From: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@redhat.com>
To: Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz>
Cc: linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, Yong Sun <yosun@suse.com>
Subject: Re: pynfs: [NFS 4.0] SEC7, LOCK24 test failures
Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2021 11:31:34 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YLZS1iMJR59n4hue@pick.fieldses.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YLY9pKu38lEWaXxE@pevik>
On Tue, Jun 01, 2021 at 04:01:08PM +0200, Petr Vorel wrote:
> I've also find different failures on NFS 4.0:
>
> SEC7 st_secinfo.testRPCSEC_GSS : FAILURE
> SECINFO returned mechanism list without RPCSEC_GSS
That shouldn't be run by default; see patch, appended.
> LOCK24 st_lock.testOpenUpgradeLock : FAILURE
> OP_LOCK should return NFS4_OK, instead got
> NFS4ERR_BAD_SEQID
I suspect the server's actually OK here, but I need to look more
closely.
> They're on stable kernel 5.12.3-1-default (openSUSE). I saw them also on older
> kernel 4.19.0-16-amd64 (Debian).
>
> Any idea how to find whether are these are wrong setup or test bugs or real
> kernel bugs?
For what it's worth, this is what I do as part of my regular regression
tests, for 4.0:
http://git.linux-nfs.org/?p=bfields/testd.git;a=blob;f=bin/do-pynfs;h=4ed0f7942b9ff0907cbd3bb0ec1643dad02758f5;hb=HEAD
and for 4.1:
http://git.linux-nfs.org/?p=bfields/testd.git;a=blob;f=bin/do-pynfs41;h=b3afc60dfab17aa5037d3f587d3d113bc772970e;hb=HEAD
There are some known 4.0 failures that I skip:
http://git.linux-nfs.org/?p=bfields/testd.git;a=blob;f=data/pynfs-skip;h=44256bb26e3fae86572e7c7057b1889652fa014b;hb=HEAD
(But LOCK24 isn't on that list because I keep saying I'm going to triage
it....)
And for 4.1:
http://git.linux-nfs.org/?p=bfields/testd.git;a=blob;f=data/pynfs41-skip;h=c682bed97742cf799b94364872c7575ac9fc188c;hb=HEAD
--b.
commit 98f4ce2e6418
Author: J. Bruce Fields <bfields@redhat.com>
Date: Tue Jun 1 11:10:06 2021 -0400
nfs4.0 secinfo: auth_gss not required
RPCSEC_GSS is mandatory to implement, but that doesn't mean every server
will have it be configured on.
I try to only add the "all" tag to tests whose failure indicates the
server is really out of spec, or at least is very unusual and likely to
cause problems for clients.
Signed-off-by: J. Bruce Fields <bfields@redhat.com>
diff --git a/nfs4.0/servertests/st_secinfo.py b/nfs4.0/servertests/st_secinfo.py
index d9363de36969..4c4a44b3c919 100644
--- a/nfs4.0/servertests/st_secinfo.py
+++ b/nfs4.0/servertests/st_secinfo.py
@@ -102,7 +102,7 @@ def testRPCSEC_GSS(t, env):
per section 3.2.1.1 of RFC
- FLAGS: secinfo all
+ FLAGS: secinfo gss
DEPEND: SEC1
CODE: SEC7
"""
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-06-01 15:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-06-01 14:01 pynfs: [NFS 4.0] SEC7, LOCK24 test failures Petr Vorel
2021-06-01 15:31 ` J. Bruce Fields [this message]
2021-06-02 7:58 ` Petr Vorel
2022-01-18 4:52 ` NeilBrown
2022-01-20 10:51 ` Petr Vorel
2022-01-25 22:46 ` Bruce Fields
2022-01-25 23:48 ` NeilBrown
2022-01-26 0:14 ` Frank Filz
2022-04-01 13:30 ` Petr Vorel
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=YLZS1iMJR59n4hue@pick.fieldses.org \
--to=bfields@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pvorel@suse.cz \
--cc=yosun@suse.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox