https://jira.whamcloud.com This file is an XML representation of an issue en-us 9.4.14 940014 05-12-2023 https://jira.whamcloud.com/browse/LU-12922 Lustre <p>This issue was created by maloo for sarah &lt;sarah@whamcloud.com&gt;</p> <p>This issue relates to the following test suite run: <a href="https://testing.whamcloud.com/test_sets/661f272e-fb43-11e9-a0ba-52540065bddc" class="external-link" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">https://testing.whamcloud.com/test_sets/661f272e-fb43-11e9-a0ba-52540065bddc</a></p> <p>test_2 failed with the following error:</p> <div class="preformatted panel" style="border-width: 1px;"><div class="preformattedContent panelContent"> <pre>PJDFSTEST against lustre failed </pre> </div></div> <p>The new added pjdfstest failed against lustre on different tests, here is the summary</p> <div class="preformatted panel" style="border-width: 1px;"><div class="preformattedContent panelContent"> <pre>Test Summary Report ------------------- /usr/share/pjdfstest/chmod/00.t (Wstat: 0 Tests: 119 Failed: 4) Failed tests: 112-114, 116 /usr/share/pjdfstest/chmod/07.t (Wstat: 0 Tests: 25 Failed: 2) Failed tests: 7, 17 /usr/share/pjdfstest/chown/00.t (Wstat: 0 Tests: 1323 Failed: 37) Failed tests: 292, 299, 307, 312, 319, 327, 332, 339 347, 352, 359, 367, 372, 379, 387, 392 399, 407, 412, 954-956, 978-980, 1002-1004 1026-1028, 1050-1052, 1074-1076 /usr/share/pjdfstest/chown/07.t (Wstat: 0 Tests: 132 Failed: 38) Failed tests: 7-8, 12-13, 20-21, 27-28, 32-33, 40-41 47-48, 52-53, 60-61, 67-68, 72-73, 80-81 87-88, 92-93, 100-101, 107-108, 112-113 120-121, 127-128 /usr/share/pjdfstest/mkdir/00.t (Wstat: 0 Tests: 36 Failed: 6) Failed tests: 18-23 /usr/share/pjdfstest/mkfifo/00.t (Wstat: 0 Tests: 36 Failed: 6) Failed tests: 18-23 /usr/share/pjdfstest/mknod/00.t (Wstat: 0 Tests: 36 Failed: 6) Failed tests: 18-23 /usr/share/pjdfstest/open/00.t (Wstat: 0 Tests: 47 Failed: 6) Failed tests: 18-23 /usr/share/pjdfstest/open/06.t (Wstat: 0 Tests: 144 Failed: 20) Failed tests: 9-11, 13-15, 21, 25, 34, 38, 70-71, 73-74 80, 84, 116, 118, 122, 124 /usr/share/pjdfstest/rename/10.t (Wstat: 0 Tests: 2099 Failed: 6) Failed tests: 2062, 2091-2095 /usr/share/pjdfstest/utimensat/08.t (Wstat: 0 Tests: 9 Failed: 2) Failed tests: 5-6 Files=232, Tests=8789, 212 wallclock secs ( 1.29 usr 0.22 sys + 27.94 cusr 38.87 csys = 68.32 CPU) Result: FAIL </pre> </div></div> <p>VVVVVVV DO NOT REMOVE LINES BELOW, Added by Maloo for auto-association VVVVVVV<br/> pjdfstest test_2 - PJDFSTEST against lustre failed</p> LU-12922

pjdfstest chown_00: POSIX compliance failed on lustre

Bug Minor Open Unresolved WC Triage Maloo Thu, 31 Oct 2019 18:14:32 +0000 Fri, 17 Apr 2020 20:44:16 +0000 Lustre 2.13.0 0 4 <p>It looks like a number of failures are duplicated between ext4 and lustre and should be excluded from the testing, so that the ext4 test passes.</p> <p>There are a large number of tests that are failing with <tt>expected 0, got EACCES</tt>, which at first glance may relate to the test using supplementary groups that are not configured on the MDS. It makes sense to either configure the test to use groups that are already existing, or the groups have to be added on the MDS.</p> <p>I think once these failures have been addressed, there will be only a small number of remaining failures that need to be looked at.</p> <p>After adding the required user/group ID, this test failed on 2 subtests against Lustre<br/> <a href="https://testing.whamcloud.com/test_sets/f7bb158c-47e3-4b29-96c6-146b42120003" class="external-link" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">https://testing.whamcloud.com/test_sets/f7bb158c-47e3-4b29-96c6-146b42120003</a></p> <div class="preformatted panel" style="border-width: 1px;"><div class="preformattedContent panelContent"> <pre>== pjdfstest test 3a: chown changes ownership (chown/00.t) =========================================== 19:54:08 (1582574048) Run /usr/share/pjdfstest/chown/00.t against ext4 filesystem prove -f /usr/share/pjdfstest/chown/00.t &gt; /tmp/pjdfstest-ext4 2&gt;&amp;1 Run /usr/share/pjdfstest/chown/00.t against lustre filesystem prove -f /usr/share/pjdfstest/chown/00.t &gt; /tmp/pjdfstest-lustre 2&gt;&amp;1 ext4 report /usr/share/pjdfstest/chown/00.t .. ok All tests successful. Files=1, Tests=1323, 81 wallclock secs ( 0.18 usr 0.01 sys + 2.17 cusr 5.02 csys = 7.38 CPU) Result: PASS lustre report /usr/share/pjdfstest/chown/00.t .. not ok 312 - tried '-u 65532 -g 65531 -- chown pjdfstest_c2eeb5584dbe39810035c7d5745e8702 -1 -1', expected 0, got EPERM not ok 319 - tried '-u 65532 -g 65531 -- chown pjdfstest_c2eeb5584dbe39810035c7d5745e8702 -1 -1', expected 0, got EPERM not ok 327 - tried '-u 65532 -g 65531 -- lchown pjdfstest_c2eeb5584dbe39810035c7d5745e8702 -1 -1', expected 0, got EPERM Failed 3/1323 subtests </pre> </div></div> <div class="preformatted panel" style="border-width: 1px;"><div class="preformattedContent panelContent"> <pre>== pjdfstest test 17i: utimensat can set timestamps with subsecond precision (utimensat/08.t) ======== 20:20:17 (1582575617) Run /usr/share/pjdfstest/utimensat/08.t against ext4 filesystem prove -f /usr/share/pjdfstest/utimensat/08.t &gt; /tmp/pjdfstest-ext4 2&gt;&amp;1 Run /usr/share/pjdfstest/utimensat/08.t against lustre filesystem prove -f /usr/share/pjdfstest/utimensat/08.t &gt; /tmp/pjdfstest-lustre 2&gt;&amp;1 ext4 report /usr/share/pjdfstest/utimensat/08.t .. not ok 5 - tried 'lstat pjdfstest_0ae536f2c253c944c4d725e3a6b60c95 atime_ns', expected 100000000, got 0 not ok 6 - tried 'lstat pjdfstest_0ae536f2c253c944c4d725e3a6b60c95 mtime_ns', expected 200000000, got 0 Failed 2/9 subtests </pre> </div></div> <p>Lustre doesn't store nanosecond timestamps (at least not until <a href="https://jira.whamcloud.com/browse/LU-1158" title="nanosecond timestamp support for Lustre" class="issue-link" data-issue-key="LU-1158">LU-1158</a> is updated and landed), but I don't think that is a priority for anyone at this point. So those tests will not pass on Lustre and this is expected.</p> <p>There's just three more chown failures when trying to set the user/group to -1; <a href="https://testing.whamcloud.com/test_sets/73aa184a-71a0-4f84-80c9-2182256a50ba" class="external-link" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">https://testing.whamcloud.com/test_sets/73aa184a-71a0-4f84-80c9-2182256a50ba</a>. </p> <div class="preformatted panel" style="border-width: 1px;"><div class="preformattedContent panelContent"> <pre>lustre report /usr/share/pjdfstest/chown/00.t .. not ok 312 - tried '-u 65532 -g 65531 -- chown pjdfstest_8c15b69e4c4c1ba0a36eca9dd7ada25f -1 -1', expected 0, got EPERM not ok 319 - tried '-u 65532 -g 65531 -- chown pjdfstest_8c15b69e4c4c1ba0a36eca9dd7ada25f -1 -1', expected 0, got EPERM not ok 327 - tried '-u 65532 -g 65531 -- lchown pjdfstest_8c15b69e4c4c1ba0a36eca9dd7ada25f -1 -1', expected 0, got EPERM Failed 3/1323 subtests </pre> </div></div> <p>I"m having a hard time finding a copy of the POSIX standard that is freely accessible, but from chown(2), I see the following:<br/> If the owner or group is specified as -1, then that ID is not changed.</p> <p>I usually reference <a href="https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/007908799/" class="external-link" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">The Single UNIX Specification v2</a> for this kind of information, it says in the <a href="https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/007908799/xsh/chown.html" class="external-link" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">chown(2)</a> section:</p> <blockquote> <p>Changing the group ID is permitted to a process with an effective user ID equal to the user ID of the file, but without appropriate privileges, if and only if owner is equal to the file's user ID or (<b>uid_t</b>)-1 and group is equal either to the calling process' effective group ID or to one of its supplementary group IDs. </p> <p>If owner or group is specified as (<b>uid_t</b>)-1 or (<b>gid_t</b>)-1 respectively, the corresponding ID of the file is unchanged. <br/> <b>ERRORS</b><br/> <span class="error">&#91;EPERM&#93;</span><br/> The effective user ID does not match the owner of the file, or the calling process does not have appropriate privileges. </p></blockquote> <p>Presumably these errors do not appera for ext4 or XFS?</p> <p>Correct, looking at the latest test results, we do not see the chown -1 owner/user issue for ext4. All tests in chown/00.t pass.</p> Related LU-1158 LU-12662 Development Rank 1|i00ou7: Rank (Obsolete) 9223372036854775807 Severity