[LTP] LTP release status

[Jan Stancek]

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Eryu Guan" <eguan@redhat.com>
> To: "Jan Stancek" <jstancek@redhat.com>
> Cc: "Cyril Hrubis" <chrubis@suse.cz>, ltp@lists.linux.it, "Artem Savkov" <asavkov@redhat.com>
> Sent: Monday, 16 January, 2017 4:25:32 PM
> Subject: Re: [LTP] LTP release status
> 
> On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 09:09:56AM -0500, Jan Stancek wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Cyril Hrubis" <chrubis@suse.cz>
> > > To: "Jan Stancek" <jstancek@redhat.com>
> > > Cc: ltp@lists.linux.it
> > > Sent: Monday, 16 January, 2017 2:30:24 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [LTP] LTP release status
> > > 
> > > Hi!
> > > > > So I guess I should tag the git and write the release notes once you
> > > > > push your patches, okay?
> > > > 
> > > > Fine by me. I'm going to look at pushing those 2 patches.
> > > 
> > > And I've just stumbled over:
> > > 
> > > commit 8cc1e10d725c9104c0fc2a31527be8b1d9baa252
> > > Author: Artem Savkov <asavkov@redhat.com>
> > > Date:   Thu Sep 1 11:06:13 2016 +0200
> > > 
> > >     utimensat: fix immutable file retcodes for 4.8.0 and newer.
> > > 
> > >     Kernel 4.8.0 contains patch "337684a fs: return EPERM on immutable
> > >     inode"
> > >     that
> > >     makes operations on immutable files return EPERM instead of EACCESS.
> > > 
> > >     Adjust utimensat test to check new retcode for kernels 4.8.0 and
> > >     newer.
> > > 
> > >     Signed-off-by: Artem Savkov <asavkov@redhat.com>
> > >     Reviewed-by: Jan Stancek <jstancek@redhat.com>
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Looking closely at the manual page it explicitly says that immutable file
> > > with
> > > NULL times must return EACCESS. So as far as I can tell this either hides
> > > a
> > > kernel bug or the manual page is wrong. We may want to revert this for
> > > the
> > > release, what do you think?
> > 
> > I'm thinking revert until we figure out which one is correct. I checked
> > man-pages
> > mailing list, but I don't see any patches for utimensat.
> > 
> > @Eryu: kernel commit 337684a mentions setxattr03, do you recall if it
> > changed
> > also utimensat errno code on purpose? We seem to have a conflict with man
> > page at the moment.
> 
> Yes, I changed all errno to EPERM on immutable inode so that we return
> the consistent errno. But I failed to reference a explicit standard to
> say what we really should return on immutable inode, just that in most
> places EPERM are returned on immutable or append-only inode, and
> fcntl(2) manpage says (it doesn't mention immutable inode):
> 
> EPERM  Attempted to clear the O_APPEND flag on a file that has the
> append-only attribute set.
> 
> I think immutable inode should be treated the same as append-only inode,
> they're both file attribute.
> 
> OTOH, utimensat(2) manpage seems inconsistent/vague on immutable inode,
> it says:
> 
> EACCES ...
> ...
> 	*  the file is marked immutable (see chattr(1)).
> 
> then
> 
> EPERM ...
> ...
> 	*  the file is marked append-only or immutable (see chattr(1)).
> 
> Perhaps the manpage should be updated.

I'm going to ask on fsdevel mailing list.

Regards,
Jan


> 
> Thanks,
> Eryu
>