[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2037087.W39pGsgtbe@silver>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2020 17:19:20 +0200
From: Christian Schoenebeck <qemu_oss@...debyte.com>
To: Greg Kurz <groug@...d.org>
Cc: Jianyong Wu <jianyong.wu@....com>, ericvh@...il.com,
lucho@...kov.net, asmadeus@...ewreck.org,
v9fs-developer@...ts.sourceforge.net, justin.he@....com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [V9fs-developer] [PATCH RFC 0/4] 9p: fix open-unlink-f*syscall bug
On Montag, 14. September 2020 14:43:25 CEST Greg Kurz wrote:
> > So yes, looks like this also requires changes to the 9pfs 'local' fs
> > driver on QEMU side:
> > https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2016-06/msg07586.html
> >
> > Eric, Greg, would there be an easy way to establish QEMU test cases
> > running
> > the 9pfs 'local' fs driver? Right now we only have 9pfs qtest cases for
> > QEMU which can only use the 'synth' driver, which is not helpful for such
> > kind of issues.
>
> I guess it's possible to introduce new qtests that start QEMU with
> -fsdev local instead of -fsdev synth... I haven't looked in a while
> though, so I won't comment on "easy way" ;-)
Makes sense, and I considered that approach as well.
The question is the following: is there a QEMU policy about test cases that
create/write/read/delete *real* files? I.e. should those test files be written
to a certain location, and are there measures of sandboxing required?
Best regards,
Christian Schoenebeck
Powered by blists - more mailing lists