[libvirt] [PATCH 2/3] tests: Only use privileged mode if Qemu user and group exists

[Guido Günther]

On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 03:03:55PM +0200, Martin Kletzander wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 12:52:36PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> >On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 01:47:14PM +0200, Martin Kletzander wrote:
> >>On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 12:49:25PM +0200, Guido Günther wrote:
> >>>On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 10:09:59AM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> >>>>On Mon, Apr 07, 2014 at 04:40:24PM -0600, Eric Blake wrote:
> >>>>> On 04/07/2014 02:02 AM, Guido Günther wrote:
> >>>>> > When building packages in a clean chroot the QEMU_USER and QEMU_GROUP
> >>>>> > don't exist making VirQemuDriverConfigNew fail with privileged=true.
> >>>>> >
> >>>>> > Avoid that by not requiring priviliged mode and skipping tests that need
> >>>>>
> >>>>> s/priviliged/privileged/
> >>>>>
> >>>>> > it.
> >>>>> > ---
> >>>>> >  tests/qemuxml2argvtest.c | 24 ++++++++++++++++--------
> >>>>> >  1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Seems like this is what avoids the fail pointed out in 1/3.  It still
> >>>>> feels fishy that our testsuite is that dependent on the system (ideally,
> >>>>> we'd provide a way to mock things up so that creating the config file
> >>>>> NEVER fails when run from the testsuite, even if the uid doesn't exist -
> >>>>> because we shouldn't be probing the live system, only our mockups).  I'd
> >>>>> wait for a second opinion on whether this patch is papering over a
> >>>>> bigger problem of depending on the current system state, or whether it
> >>>>> is an acceptable way to avoid the issue without investing the effort to
> >>>>> tackle at the uid lookup level.
> >>>>
> >>>>IMHO we should be passing  privileged == false unconditionally, so that
> >>>>we always skip any magic username lookups.
> >>>
> >>>I would have done that but Martin's 29151830e468f1a9d8006a62702591958a4e3481
> >>>did the opposite, so o.k. to revert that?
> >>
> >>Reverting that will make *tune tests fail.  We could, however, create
> >>our own test config instead of virQEMUDriverConfigNew() or add a
> >>parameter to it which will decide on what to do, the least being:
> >
> >What about passing 'false' to ConfigNew() but then manually
> >set  'cfg->privileged = true' on the object we get back.
> >
> 
> That could work.  All tests passed on my setup like that.  And it
> doesn't seem weird since we're playing with the config a lot in the
> tests.

I do wonder if my approach wouldn't be cleaner since it doesn't poke
into the objects internals.
Cheers,
 -- Guido