[LTP] [PATCH] statx07: Skip test if NFS server is never enabled

[Petr Vorel]

Hi Li, all,

> The statx07 test requires an active NFS server, as it relies on
> exportfs, which reads from '/var/lib/nfs/etab'. By default, etab
> file does not exist unless the NFS server is started at least once
> (since new version nfs-utils-2.5.4-32.el9).

> This causing the test to fail when etab is missing:

>   tst_test.c:1722: TINFO: Overall timeout per run is 0h 00m 30s
>   tst_buffers.c:57: TINFO: Test is using guarded buffers
>   exportfs: can't open /var/lib/nfs/etab for reading
>   statx07.c:136: TBROK: failed to exportfs

> This patch adds a check using access("/var/lib/nfs/etab", F_OK)
> before running the test. If the file does not exist, the test
> is skipped (TCONF) instead of failing, preventing misleading
> test failures.

> Signed-off-by: Li Wang <liwang@redhat.com>
> Cc: Yongcheng Yang <yoyang@redhat.com>
> ---
>  testcases/kernel/syscalls/statx/statx07.c | 3 +++
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)

> diff --git a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/statx/statx07.c b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/statx/statx07.c
> index 968174330..bc8e6fd65 100644
> --- a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/statx/statx07.c
> +++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/statx/statx07.c
> @@ -115,6 +115,9 @@ static void setup(void)
>  	int ret;
>  	char server_path[BUFF_SIZE];

> +	if (access("/var/lib/nfs/etab", F_OK) < 0)
> +		tst_brk(TCONF, "nfs-server might not set up");

On Tumbleweed with nfs-client-2.8.1-44.2.x86_64:

# systemctl stop nfs-server.service
# ./statx07
...
tst_test.c:1904: TINFO: Tested kernel: 6.13.0-2.g0127a37-default #1 SMP PREEMPT_DYNAMIC Thu Jan 23 11:21:55 UTC 2025 (0127a37) x86_64
...
statx07.c:141: TCONF: nfs server not set up?: EOPNOTSUPP (95)

$ ls -la /var/lib/nfs/etab

The same behavior is on older systems (I checked SLE15-SP4 with 5.14 based
kernel and nfs-client-2.1.1).

There is a working detection. I wonder what is different on the system you test.
OTOH fortunately this patch would not break SLES/openSUSE (it would just not
help to detect), therefore I'm not against it.

Kind regards,
Petr

> +
>  	mode_t old_umask = umask(0);

>  	SAFE_MKDIR(SERV_PATH, DEFAULT_MODE);