linux-ext4 - Re: [xfstests PATCH] generic: add test of file mode when setfacl fails

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 14 Jul 2017 02:40:12 -0300
From:   Ernesto A. Fernández 
        <ernesto.mnd.fernandez@...il.com>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc:     Ernesto A. Fernández 
        <ernesto.mnd.fernandez@...il.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>,
        Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
        Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@...ger.ca>,
        Dave Kleikamp <shaggy@...nel.org>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
        jfs-discussion@...ts.sourceforge.net,
        reiserfs-devel@...r.kernel.org, fstests@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [xfstests PATCH] generic: add test of file mode when setfacl
 fails

On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 04:55:07AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 06:40:04AM -0300, Ernesto A. Fernández wrote:
> > Check that the group permission bits of a file are not altered when setfacl
> > fails. At the time of this patch the test fails for at least ext2, ext4 and
> > jfs. It is not run against reiserfs, since xfstests claims that "attrs are
> > not supported by this filesystem type".
> 
> That's odd, as common/config explicitly turns on user xattrs:
> 

xfstests decides if a filesystem supports attributes by trying to set them on
the root inode, but reiserfs does not allow this. If this is actually the
intended behaviour of reiserfs then xfstests should use a different check, but
I'm guessing it's a bug, perhaps in mkfs.reiserfs.

> 
> > 
> > The failure to set acls is induced by filling the device, so to save time
> > this should probably be run with a small TEST_DEV.
> 
> If you run it on the scratch fs instead of the test fs you can use
> _scratch_mkfs_sized to hand craft a small fs, which would be nice
> to get a decent runtime.

That's much better, thank you. I will send a revision soon. For some reason
_scratch_mkfs_sized did not have support for jfs, but it was trivial to add.