[Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH] tailtest: Add a test for the tail zeroing bug
Joel Becker
Joel.Becker at oracle.com
Tue Jul 6 05:02:55 PDT 2010
On Tue, Jul 06, 2010 at 03:45:50PM +0800, tristan wrote:
> Hi Joel,
>
> I'm totally trusting the logic of your testcase to test tail zeroing.
>
> Just two concerns as follows:
>
> 1. It should be better to make the script runnable for none-privilege
> users for the sake of security concerns.
Can't mount without root privileges, and the test requires
umount/mount cycles to expose the problem. I wish I had a better
answer too.
> 2. Why not make variations with different bs and cs combinations
This is a good idea for completeness, but I don't want to spend
the time on that right now. I picked a bs/cs combination that was sure
to expose the bug as we know it.
> > +cleanup()
> > +{
> > + [ -d "$_MOUNTPOINT" ] && umount "$_MOUNTPOINT"
> > + [ -d "$_MOUNTPOINT" ] && rmdir "$_MOUNTPOINT"
> > + [ -n "$_LOOP" ] && losetup -d "$_LOOP"
> > + [ -n "$_IMAGE" ] && rm -f "$_IMAGE"
>
> You may also need to cleanup expected template files for comparison? if
> the test aborts abnormally.
The template files are on the test filesystem. They go away
when we remove the image.
> or rmdir never succeeds. I guess using "rm -rf $MOUNTPOINT" here will be
> more aggressive to handle this.
There's nothing under the mountpoint after we've unmounted.
that's why I use rmdir and not rm -rf.
Joel
--
"Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under Communism, it's just
the opposite."
- John Kenneth Galbraith
Joel Becker
Consulting Software Developer
Oracle
E-mail: joel.becker at oracle.com
Phone: (650) 506-8127
More information about the Ocfs2-devel
mailing list