[LTP] [PATCH] ftruncate04: require CONFIG_MANDATORY_FILE_LOCKING=y

[Jan Stancek]

On Tue, Sep 7, 2021 at 7:53 AM Li Wang <liwang@redhat.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, Sep 7, 2021 at 1:38 PM Jan Stancek <jstancek@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 7, 2021 at 4:20 AM Li Wang <liwang@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Sep 6, 2021 at 4:36 PM Jan Stancek <jstancek@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> commit f7e33bdbd6d1 ("fs: remove mandatory file locking support")
>>>> removed mandatory file locking support, but mount option
>>>> is still allowed and produces no error. There's a warning
>>>> in dmesg but it's pr_warn_once() so we can't rely to always
>>>> find it there.
>>>>
>>>> Make the test check also for CONFIG_MANDATORY_FILE_LOCKING=y.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'm wondering, if the SUT without CONFIG_MANDATORY_FILE_LOCKING
>>> enabling, why the mount-check in setup() didn't report EPERM?
>>>
>>
>> Because kernel commit f7e33bdbd6d1 removed that code, it generates
>> warning message instead.
>>
>
> Ok, I see.
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> And, should we drop the mount-check for EPERM from setup after adding
>>> this .needs_kconfigs?
>>>
>>
>> I'd keep it, it doesn't hurt anything and older kernels could get EPERM
>> for other reason (like running test in namespace where you don't have
>> CAP_SYS_ADMIN)
>>
>
> Sure, that sounds acceptable too.
>
> Reviewed-by: Li Wang <liwang@redhat.com>
>

Pushed.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linux.it/pipermail/ltp/attachments/20210907/b84ea5ad/attachment-0001.htm>