On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 15:11:41 +0100
Christian Schoenebeck <qemu_...@crudebyte.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 11, 2025 6:28:09 PM CET Greg Kurz wrote:
> > Enhance the `use-after-unlink` test with a new check for the
> > case where the client wants to alter the size of an unlinked
> > file for which it still has an active fid.
> >
> > Suggested-by: Christian Schoenebeck <qemu_...@crudebyte.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Greg Kurz <gr...@kaod.org>
> > ---
> > tests/qtest/virtio-9p-test.c | 8 ++++++++
> > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/tests/qtest/virtio-9p-test.c b/tests/qtest/virtio-9p-test.c
> > index f515a9bb157b..20c0d744fa56 100644
> > --- a/tests/qtest/virtio-9p-test.c
> > +++ b/tests/qtest/virtio-9p-test.c
> > @@ -736,6 +736,14 @@ static void fs_use_after_unlink(void *obj, void *data,
> > .data = buf
> > }).count;
> > g_assert_cmpint(count, ==, write_count);
> > +
> > + /* truncate file to (arbitrarily chosen) size 2001 */
> > + tsetattr({
> > + .client = v9p, .fid = fid_file, .attr = (v9fs_attr) {
> > + .valid = P9_SETATTR_SIZE,
> > + .size = 2001
> > + }
> > + });
> > }
> >
> > static void cleanup_9p_local_driver(void *data)
> >
>
> Ah, I just meant the code snippet as a starting point, like I would have also
> checked with a stat() call whether 9p server really did what it promised.
>
> But OK, better some test coverage than nothing. :)
>
FWIW the server returns ENOENT if it doesn't have the fix which causes
the check to fail. I was assuming this would be enough but I'm fine with
adding an extra check if you want.
> /Christian
>
>
--
Greg
