Submitted patch http://review.gluster.org/#/c/13837/, to keep the previous behavior of posix_acl_ctx_get to include for the GS hotfix.
We will fix actual issue of sending lookup on root as a separate bug. Thanks, Vijay On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 6:54 AM, Vijaikumar Mallikarjuna < [email protected]> wrote: > Previously function 'posix_acl_ctx_get' was creating inode_ctx if it is > not present. So if sometime lookup does not come for root inode, then > inode-ctx was created here without any perm set. > Now inode-ctx is created only in lookup_cbk and setattr_cbk to populate > the ctx with valid perm from statbuf, so I think we need to send lookup > for root-inode. > > Thanks, > Vijay > > > On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 8:40 PM, FNU Raghavendra Manjunath < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Root inode gets linked during mount itselsf. >> >> We get lookups on root. But since root inode is always present in the >> inode table, after the mount if there is a fop on an entry whose parent is >> root, then that fop will be able to find the parent in the inode table as >> part of resolve. So it need not explicitly send a hard resolution for >> resolving parent inode. >> >> Du? Did I miss anything? >> >> Regards, >> Raghavendra >> On Mar 28, 2016 11:02 AM, "Vijaikumar Mallikarjuna" <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Hi Du/Johny, >>> >>> Don't we get a lookup on root inode? Please confirm. >>> >>> If we don't get lookup on root inode, then we need to create inode-ctx >>> in a posix_acl_ctx_get() function. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Vijay >>> On 28-Mar-2016 7:37 PM, "FNU Raghavendra Manjunath" <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> CCing Vijay Kumar who made the acl related changes in that patch. >>>> >>>> Vijay? Can you please look into it? >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Raghavendra >>>> >>>> On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 9:57 AM, Avra Sengupta <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Raghavendra, >>>>> >>>>> As part of the patch (http://review.gluster.org/#/c/13730/16), the >>>>> inode_ctx is not created in posix_acl_ctx_get(). Because of this the >>>>> testcase in http://review.gluster.org/#/c/13623/ breaks. It fails >>>>> with the following logs: >>>>> >>>>> [2016-03-28 13:43:39.216168] D [MSGID: 0] >>>>> [io-threads.c:346:iot_schedule] 0-patchy-io-threads: CREATE scheduled as >>>>> normal fop >>>>> [2016-03-28 13:43:39.216495] E [posix-acl.c:199:acl_permits] (--> >>>>> /usr/local/lib/libglusterfs.so.0(_gf_log_callingfn+0x1ba)[0x7f6fea72780a] >>>>> (--> >>>>> /usr/local/lib/glusterfs/3.8dev/xlator/features/access-control.so(+0x49c4)[0x7f6fde5499c4] >>>>> (--> >>>>> /usr/local/lib/glusterfs/3.8dev/xlator/features/access-control.so(+0xa855)[0x7f6fde54f855] >>>>> (--> >>>>> /usr/local/lib/glusterfs/3.8dev/xlator/features/locks.so(+0xd37e)[0x7f6fde33837e] >>>>> (--> >>>>> /usr/local/lib/glusterfs/3.8dev/xlator/features/upcall.so(+0x640f)[0x7f6fde12040f] >>>>> ))))) 0-patchy-access-control: inode ctx is NULL for >>>>> 00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000001 >>>>> [2016-03-28 13:43:39.216544] I [MSGID: 115071] >>>>> [server-rpc-fops.c:1612:server_create_cbk] 0-patchy-server: 8: CREATE >>>>> /file1 (00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000001/file1) ==> (Permission >>>>> denied) >>>>> [Permission denied] >>>>> >>>>> Is it because we missed the inode_ctx creation that was being done by >>>>> posix_acl_ctx_get() previously? Can you please shed some light on this >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> Avra >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >
_______________________________________________ Gluster-devel mailing list [email protected] http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
