On Wed, 2018-01-03 at 14:16 +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:

On Tue, Jan 02, 2018 at 09:52:03PM -0500, Mimi Zohar wrote:

quoted

On Tue, 2018-01-02 at 17:40 -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote:

quoted

[might as well cc linux-xfs]

On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 12:22:37AM +0200, Dmitry Kasatkin wrote:

quoted

Hi,

Could I ask FS maintainers to test IMA with this patch additionally
and provide ack/tested.
We tested but may be you have and some special testing.

Super-late to this party, but unless xfstests has automated tests to
set up IMA on top of an existing filesystem then I most likely have no
idea /how/ to test IMA.  I did a quick grep of xfstests git and I don't
see anything IMA-related.

Back in June I posted a simple xfstests IMA-appraisal test (https://ma
rc.info/?l=linux-fsdevel&m=149703820814885&w=4).

That's a really, really basic test and it doesn't exercise the
problematic direct IO path this patch fixes problems with. nor does
it exercise the chmod path, or try to trigger deadlocks or other
conditions through all the other paths that can trigger IMA actions
and or failures (e.g. ENOSPC).  IOWs, we need a lot more than a
"hello world" test to be able to verify filesystems interact with
IMA properly. e.g. how does it behave at ENOSPC?

True, but for now we were looking for some basic testing - opening a
file and calculating the file hash - on different filesystems, not the
direct-IO path in particular.  Expanding the IMA-appraisal xfstests is
high on my "todo" list.

Mimi