Re: [PATCH] t1304: improve setfacl prerequisite setup
From: Junio C Hamano <hidden>
Date: 2016-06-15 22:54:00
Jeff King [off-list ref] writes:
quoted hunk
t1304 first runs setfacl as an experiment to see whether the filesystem supports ACLs, and skips the remaining tests if it does not. However, our setfacl run did not exercise the ACLs very well, and some filesystems may support our initial setfacl, but not the rest of the test. In particular, some versions of ecryptfs will erroneously apply the umask on top of an inherited directory ACL, causing our tests to fail. Let's be more careful and make sure both that we can read back the user ACL we set, and that the inherited ACL is propagated correctly. The latter catches the ecryptfs bug, but may also catch other bugs (e.g., an implementation which does not handle inherited ACLs at all). Since we're making the setup more complex, let's move it into its own test. This will hide the output for us unless the user wants to run "-v" to see it (and we don't need to bother printing anything about setfacl failing; the remaining tests will properly print "skip" due to the missing prerequisite). Signed-off-by: Jeff King <redacted> --- The ecryptfs response was that it is probably a bug, so I think we should go with this (especially because it is general enough to potentially catch other weird errors). t/t1304-default-acl.sh | 19 +++++++++---------- 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)diff --git a/t/t1304-default-acl.sh b/t/t1304-default-acl.sh index 2b962cf..79045ab 100755 --- a/t/t1304-default-acl.sh +++ b/t/t1304-default-acl.sh@@ -14,16 +14,15 @@ umask 077 # We need an arbitrary other user give permission to using ACLs. root # is a good candidate: exists on all unices, and it has permission # anyway, so we don't create a security hole running the testsuite. - -setfacl_out="$(setfacl -m u:root:rwx . 2>&1)" -setfacl_ret=$? - -if test $setfacl_ret != 0 -then - say "Unable to use setfacl (output: '$setfacl_out'; return code: '$setfacl_ret')" -else - test_set_prereq SETFACL -fi +test_expect_success 'checking for a working acl setup' ' + if setfacl -m d:m:rwx -m u:root:rwx . && + getfacl . | grep user:root:rwx && + touch should-have-readable-acl && + getfacl should-have-readable-acl | egrep "mask::?rw-"
At this point of the test, I do not think there is anything that can cause this check to be fooled by a user whose name is 'mask', but please make it a habit to anchor the pattern at the left. The tests done in check_perms_and_acl do risk getting fooled by a user whose name is 'mask', and need to be updated, I think, but that is a separate issue.
+ then + test_set_prereq SETFACL + fi +' if test -z "$LOGNAME" then