Re: [osol-discuss] [zfs-discuss] Which kind of ACLs does tmpfssupport?
Alan Coopersmith alan.coopersm...@sun.com wrote: If the test suite is going to be running on nv_128 or later, then you are guaranteed to have a zfs filesystem, since root must be zfs then (since the only install method will be IPS, which requires zfs root). Until then you could just document to run it on a system with a zfs filesystem available. Are you kidding? An installer that depends on the availability of a specific root filesystem is based on a design bug. What is the reason? Is there still no pkgrm command in IPS? If Yes, then it is obvious that IPS is not yet ready for production use. Jörg -- EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin j...@cs.tu-berlin.de(uni) joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] [zfs-discuss] Which kind of ACLs does tmpfssupport?
Joerg Schilling wrote: Alan Coopersmith alan.coopersm...@sun.com wrote: If the test suite is going to be running on nv_128 or later, then you are guaranteed to have a zfs filesystem, since root must be zfs then (since the only install method will be IPS, which requires zfs root). Until then you could just document to run it on a system with a zfs filesystem available. Are you kidding? No, though as Darren clarified, it's the IPS-based installers and pkg image-update mechanism that rely on ZFS, since boot environments are managed using ZFS snapshots/clones, much as Live Upgrade does on ZFS systems. An installer that depends on the availability of a specific root filesystem is based on a design bug. The installer used in Solaris 2.0 through the original release of 10 required UFS as the root filesystem - that wasn't a design bug, just the way it was designed. Is there still no pkgrm command in IPS? pkgrm is the command for SVR4 packages. pkg uninstall is the IPS equivalent and has of course been there since the first public release of IPS. Perhaps you should try using IPS before telling the world how broken your understanding of it is. -- -Alan Coopersmith- alan.coopersm...@sun.com Sun Microsystems, Inc. - X Window System Engineering ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] [zfs-discuss] Which kind of ACLs does tmpfssupport?
Joerg Schilling wrote: Alan Coopersmith alan.coopersm...@sun.com wrote: If the test suite is going to be running on nv_128 or later, then you are guaranteed to have a zfs filesystem, since root must be zfs then (since the only install method will be IPS, which requires zfs root). Until then you could just document to run it on a system with a zfs filesystem available. Are you kidding? pkg will install just fine onto other filesystems eg: $ pkg image-create -a opensolaris.org=http://pkg.opensolaris.org/dev /tmp/darrenm/myimage $ pkg -R /tmp/darrenm/myimage install SUNWmkcd /tmp is tmpfs on this sytem and note that the prompt is $ not # pkg doesn't even require you be root. Whats more pkg isn't even specific to Solaris it works on other UNIX like systems and even on Windows. So it is clearly false that it requires ZFS since that doesn't even exist on all the other platforms. Don't confuse the decisions made for the OpenSolaris 2009.06 releases of only supporting and allowing install to ZFS root with the capabilities of the package system. An installer that depends on the availability of a specific root filesystem is based on a design bug. What is the reason? Is there still no pkgrm command in IPS? If Yes, then it is obvious that IPS is not yet ready for production use. See the man page for pkg: pkg uninstall [-nrvq] [--no-index] package... If you want to discuss pkg capabilities more please continue this discussion on pkg-disc...@opensolaris.org where the pkg experts will be happy to engage. -- Darren J Moffat ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] [zfs-discuss] Which kind of ACLs does tmpfssupport?
Ian Collins wrote: Roland Mainz wrote: Norm Jacobs wrote: Roland Mainz wrote: Does anyone know out-of-the-head whether tmpfs supports ACLs - and if yes - which type(s) of ACLs (e.g. NFSv4/ZFS, old POSIX draft ACLs etc.) are supported by tmpfs ? I have some vague recollection that tmpfs doesn't support ACLs snd it appears to be so... Is there any RFE which requests the implementation of NFSv4-like ACLs for tmpfs yet ? ZFS opensolaris% touch /var/tmp/bar opensolaris% chmod A=user:lp:r:deny /var/tmp/bar opensolaris% TMPFS opensolaris% touch /tmp/bar opensolaris% chmod A=user:lp:r:deny /tmp/bar chmod: ERROR: Failed to set ACL: Operation not supported opensolaris% Ok... does that mean that I have to create a ZFS filesystem to actually test ([1]) an application which modifies ZFS/NFSv4 ACLs or are there any other options ? Use function interposition. Umpf... the matching code is linked with -Bdirect ... AFAIK I can't interpose library functions linked with this option, right ? Bye, Roland -- __ . . __ (o.\ \/ /.o) roland.ma...@nrubsig.org \__\/\/__/ MPEG specialist, CJAVASunUnix programmer /O /==\ O\ TEL +49 641 3992797 (;O/ \/ \O;) ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] [zfs-discuss] Which kind of ACLs does tmpfssupport?
Roland Mainz wrote: Ian Collins wrote: Roland Mainz wrote: Norm Jacobs wrote: Roland Mainz wrote: Does anyone know out-of-the-head whether tmpfs supports ACLs - and if yes - which type(s) of ACLs (e.g. NFSv4/ZFS, old POSIX draft ACLs etc.) are supported by tmpfs ? I have some vague recollection that tmpfs doesn't support ACLs snd it appears to be so... Is there any RFE which requests the implementation of NFSv4-like ACLs for tmpfs yet ? ZFS opensolaris% touch /var/tmp/bar opensolaris% chmod A=user:lp:r:deny /var/tmp/bar opensolaris% TMPFS opensolaris% touch /tmp/bar opensolaris% chmod A=user:lp:r:deny /tmp/bar chmod: ERROR: Failed to set ACL: Operation not supported opensolaris% Ok... does that mean that I have to create a ZFS filesystem to actually test ([1]) an application which modifies ZFS/NFSv4 ACLs or are there any other options ? Use function interposition. Umpf... the matching code is linked with -Bdirect ... AFAIK I can't interpose library functions linked with this option, right ? I never build test harnesses with explicit ld options (I use the C or C++ compiler for linking). There is a note about interposition in the ld man page description of -B. -- Ian. ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] [zfs-discuss] Which kind of ACLs does tmpfssupport?
Robert Thurlow wrote: Roland Mainz wrote: Ok... does that mean that I have to create a ZFS filesystem to actually test ([1]) an application which modifies ZFS/NFSv4 ACLs or are there any other options ? By all means, test with ZFS. But it's easy to do that: # mkfile 64m /zpool.file # zpool create test /zpool.file # zfs list test 67.5K 27.4M18K /test I know... but AFAIK this requires root priviledges which the test suite won't have... Bye, Roland -- __ . . __ (o.\ \/ /.o) roland.ma...@nrubsig.org \__\/\/__/ MPEG specialist, CJAVASunUnix programmer /O /==\ O\ TEL +49 641 3992797 (;O/ \/ \O;) ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] [zfs-discuss] Which kind of ACLs does tmpfssupport?
Roland Mainz wrote: Umpf... the matching code is linked with -Bdirect ... AFAIK I can't interpose library functions linked with this option, right ? You could set LD_NODIRECT to defeat direct bindings --- see ld.so.1(1). However, I agree with the thought that it would be easier to just have a ZFS filesystem to test against. - Ali ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] [zfs-discuss] Which kind of ACLs does tmpfssupport?
Roland Mainz wrote: Robert Thurlow wrote: Roland Mainz wrote: Ok... does that mean that I have to create a ZFS filesystem to actually test ([1]) an application which modifies ZFS/NFSv4 ACLs or are there any other options ? By all means, test with ZFS. But it's easy to do that: # mkfile 64m /zpool.file # zpool create test /zpool.file # zfs list test 67.5K 27.4M18K /test I know... but AFAIK this requires root priviledges which the test suite won't have... If the test suite is going to be running on nv_128 or later, then you are guaranteed to have a zfs filesystem, since root must be zfs then (since the only install method will be IPS, which requires zfs root). Until then you could just document to run it on a system with a zfs filesystem available. -- -Alan Coopersmith- alan.coopersm...@sun.com Sun Microsystems, Inc. - X Window System Engineering ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] [zfs-discuss] Which kind of ACLs does tmpfssupport?
Roland Mainz wrote: Robert Thurlow wrote: Roland Mainz wrote: Ok... does that mean that I have to create a ZFS filesystem to actually test ([1]) an application which modifies ZFS/NFSv4 ACLs or are there any other options ? By all means, test with ZFS. But it's easy to do that: # mkfile 64m /zpool.file # zpool create test /zpool.file # zfs list test 67.5K 27.4M18K /test I know... but AFAIK this requires root priviledges which the test suite won't have... Bye, Roland You can delegate the ability to create ZFS filesystems. -Norm ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] [zfs-discuss] Which kind of ACLs does tmpfssupport?
Roland Mainz wrote: Robert Thurlow wrote: Roland Mainz wrote: Ok... does that mean that I have to create a ZFS filesystem to actually test ([1]) an application which modifies ZFS/NFSv4 ACLs or are there any other options ? By all means, test with ZFS. But it's easy to do that: # mkfile 64m /zpool.file # zpool create test /zpool.file # zfs list test 67.5K 27.4M18K /test I know... but AFAIK this requires root priviledges which the test suite won't have... It is also more difficult to test error conditions. Unless you really have to, don't use fancy link options for a test harness so you can easily interpose (or simply define) mock library calls. If you stick with regular dynamic linking, you can simply define your mock/stub library functions in your test code. Easy. -- Ian. ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
