From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jan Stancek Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2017 10:40:54 -0500 (EST) Subject: [LTP] LTP release status In-Reply-To: <20170116152532.GJ1859@eguan.usersys.redhat.com> References: <20170112142828.GC1208@rei.lan> <20170112153917.GB5381@rei.lan> <1054431302.3375878.1484571069128.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> <20170116130237.GA26610@rei.lan> <1116838376.3405880.1484572780617.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> <20170116133023.GB26610@rei.lan> <329006128.105238.1484575796946.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> <20170116152532.GJ1859@eguan.usersys.redhat.com> Message-ID: <1406802536.355787.1484581254726.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: ltp@lists.linux.it ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Eryu Guan" > To: "Jan Stancek" > Cc: "Cyril Hrubis" , ltp@lists.linux.it, "Artem Savkov" > Sent: Monday, 16 January, 2017 4:25:32 PM > Subject: Re: [LTP] LTP release status > > On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 09:09:56AM -0500, Jan Stancek wrote: > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Cyril Hrubis" > > > To: "Jan Stancek" > > > Cc: ltp@lists.linux.it > > > Sent: Monday, 16 January, 2017 2:30:24 PM > > > Subject: Re: [LTP] LTP release status > > > > > > Hi! > > > > > So I guess I should tag the git and write the release notes once you > > > > > push your patches, okay? > > > > > > > > Fine by me. I'm going to look at pushing those 2 patches. > > > > > > And I've just stumbled over: > > > > > > commit 8cc1e10d725c9104c0fc2a31527be8b1d9baa252 > > > Author: Artem Savkov > > > Date: Thu Sep 1 11:06:13 2016 +0200 > > > > > > utimensat: fix immutable file retcodes for 4.8.0 and newer. > > > > > > Kernel 4.8.0 contains patch "337684a fs: return EPERM on immutable > > > inode" > > > that > > > makes operations on immutable files return EPERM instead of EACCESS. > > > > > > Adjust utimensat test to check new retcode for kernels 4.8.0 and > > > newer. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Artem Savkov > > > Reviewed-by: Jan Stancek > > > > > > > > > Looking closely at the manual page it explicitly says that immutable file > > > with > > > NULL times must return EACCESS. So as far as I can tell this either hides > > > a > > > kernel bug or the manual page is wrong. We may want to revert this for > > > the > > > release, what do you think? > > > > I'm thinking revert until we figure out which one is correct. I checked > > man-pages > > mailing list, but I don't see any patches for utimensat. > > > > @Eryu: kernel commit 337684a mentions setxattr03, do you recall if it > > changed > > also utimensat errno code on purpose? We seem to have a conflict with man > > page at the moment. > > Yes, I changed all errno to EPERM on immutable inode so that we return > the consistent errno. But I failed to reference a explicit standard to > say what we really should return on immutable inode, just that in most > places EPERM are returned on immutable or append-only inode, and > fcntl(2) manpage says (it doesn't mention immutable inode): > > EPERM Attempted to clear the O_APPEND flag on a file that has the > append-only attribute set. > > I think immutable inode should be treated the same as append-only inode, > they're both file attribute. > > OTOH, utimensat(2) manpage seems inconsistent/vague on immutable inode, > it says: > > EACCES ... > ... > * the file is marked immutable (see chattr(1)). > > then > > EPERM ... > ... > * the file is marked append-only or immutable (see chattr(1)). > > Perhaps the manpage should be updated. I'm going to ask on fsdevel mailing list. Regards, Jan > > Thanks, > Eryu >