Re: [LTP] [PATCH 05/13] vma05.sh, keyctl01.sh: Add groups

Re: [LTP] [PATCH 05/13] vma05.sh, keyctl01.sh: Add groups

[Andrea Cervesato via ltp]

Hi Cyril,

as I already mentioned, I think we should do this in all tests,
instead of having it only for shell tests. I know manual groups
are error-prone, but they give us good control over what we are
setting up.

I'm not sure if adding groups based on folders as we decided to
do it for C API is a good idea. A tst_test->groups array feels
better suited, if shell tests can't automatically support the
same approach.

We should have the same approach for both C and shell tests
to keep consistency.

--
Andrea Cervesato
SUSE QE Automation Engineer Linux
andrea.cervesato@suse.com

-- 
Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp

Re: [LTP] [PATCH 05/13] vma05.sh, keyctl01.sh: Add groups

[Cyril Hrubis]

Hi!
> as I already mentioned, I think we should do this in all tests,
> instead of having it only for shell tests. I know manual groups
> are error-prone, but they give us good control over what we are
> setting up.
> 
> I'm not sure if adding groups based on folders as we decided to
> do it for C API is a good idea. A tst_test->groups array feels
> better suited, if shell tests can't automatically support the
> same approach.

I fear that we will have a lot of typos and wrong data in there. We had
quite a few wrong CVE tags already, because we weren't checking them for
validity.

I'm okay with this as long as we have a checks in 'make check' that make
sure that the manually assigned groups are correct. For that we would
need the same heuristic we have for automatic groups to check that we
didn't miss anything and a list of valid groups to check againts to
guard againts typos.

-- 
Cyril Hrubis
chrubis@suse.cz

-- 
Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp

Re: [LTP] [PATCH 05/13] vma05.sh, keyctl01.sh: Add groups

[Cyril Hrubis]

Hi!
> I'm okay with this as long as we have a checks in 'make check' that make
> sure that the manually assigned groups are correct. For that we would
> need the same heuristic we have for automatic groups to check that we
> didn't miss anything and a list of valid groups to check againts to
> guard againts typos.

And also duplicity check.

-- 
Cyril Hrubis
chrubis@suse.cz

-- 
Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp

Re: [LTP] [PATCH 05/13] vma05.sh, keyctl01.sh: Add groups

[Andrea Cervesato via ltp]

> Hi!
> > as I already mentioned, I think we should do this in all tests,
> > instead of having it only for shell tests. I know manual groups
> > are error-prone, but they give us good control over what we are
> > setting up.
> > 
> > I'm not sure if adding groups based on folders as we decided to
> > do it for C API is a good idea. A tst_test->groups array feels
> > better suited, if shell tests can't automatically support the
> > same approach.
> 
> I fear that we will have a lot of typos and wrong data in there. We had
> quite a few wrong CVE tags already, because we weren't checking them for
> validity.
> 
> I'm okay with this as long as we have a checks in 'make check' that make
> sure that the manually assigned groups are correct. For that we would
> need the same heuristic we have for automatic groups to check that we
> didn't miss anything and a list of valid groups to check againts to
> guard againts typos.

Don't forget we also have the agent that works quite good on these
small tasks. We can add a rule and make sure they are always valid
groups.

--
Andrea Cervesato
SUSE QE Automation Engineer Linux
andrea.cervesato@suse.com

-- 
Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp

Re: [LTP] [PATCH 05/13] vma05.sh, keyctl01.sh: Add groups

[Cyril Hrubis]

Hi!
> > I fear that we will have a lot of typos and wrong data in there. We had
> > quite a few wrong CVE tags already, because we weren't checking them for
> > validity.
> > 
> > I'm okay with this as long as we have a checks in 'make check' that make
> > sure that the manually assigned groups are correct. For that we would
> > need the same heuristic we have for automatic groups to check that we
> > didn't miss anything and a list of valid groups to check againts to
> > guard againts typos.
> 
> Don't forget we also have the agent that works quite good on these
> small tasks. We can add a rule and make sure they are always valid
> groups.

Honestly I'm not 100% convinced that the agent would spot all issues,
maybe it would maybe it wouldn't but would you trust it will?

Also linter should be cheaper and pretty easy for this case.

-- 
Cyril Hrubis
chrubis@suse.cz

-- 
Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp

Re: [LTP] [PATCH 05/13] vma05.sh, keyctl01.sh: Add groups

[Andrea Cervesato via ltp]

> Also linter should be cheaper and pretty easy for this case.

We can easily do that yes, but I don't know where we could implement
this inside the make check command. I guess we need one more script
verifying the parent folders/test tags and cross-checking with the
group name which has been assigned.

--
Andrea Cervesato
SUSE QE Automation Engineer Linux
andrea.cervesato@suse.com

-- 
Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp

Re: [LTP] [PATCH 05/13] vma05.sh, keyctl01.sh: Add groups

[Cyril Hrubis]

Hi!
> > Also linter should be cheaper and pretty easy for this case.
> 
> We can easily do that yes, but I don't know where we could implement
> this inside the make check command. I guess we need one more script
> verifying the parent folders/test tags and cross-checking with the
> group name which has been assigned.

Or we can write a linter for the metadata. I guess that we can add that
to the metaparse tool. We need to check the tags for correctness
somewhere as well, otherwise we will get wrongly formatted CVE tags in
the future as well.

-- 
Cyril Hrubis
chrubis@suse.cz

-- 
Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp

Re: [LTP] [PATCH 05/13] vma05.sh, keyctl01.sh: Add groups

[Andrea Cervesato via ltp]

> Hi!
> > > Also linter should be cheaper and pretty easy for this case.
> > 
> > We can easily do that yes, but I don't know where we could implement
> > this inside the make check command. I guess we need one more script
> > verifying the parent folders/test tags and cross-checking with the
> > group name which has been assigned.
> 
> Or we can write a linter for the metadata. I guess that we can add that
> to the metaparse tool. We need to check the tags for correctness
> somewhere as well, otherwise we will get wrongly formatted CVE tags in
> the future as well.
> 
> -- 
> Cyril Hrubis
> chrubis@suse.cz

That's a good idea. Let's keep metadata stuff into the metadata folder.
I will take a look at this.

--
Andrea Cervesato
SUSE QE Automation Engineer Linux
andrea.cervesato@suse.com

-- 
Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp