Re: ftw_L test7 and ftw test4

[Andrew Josey <ajosey@rdg.opengroup.org>]

Thorsten, All
We've investigated this some. The conclusion we have reached
is that T.ftw_L test 7 is in error and should be removed from
the next version of the test suite, for the moment we
should waive this test as a test suite problem.

regards
Andrew

On Dec 11, 12:20pm in "ftw_L test7 and ftw ", Thorsten Kukuk wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I try to fix ftw() in the moment. But I think it is impossible.
>
> T.ftw_L Test 7 does:
>
> mkdir tftw-t.7
> chmod 777 tftw-t.7
> mkdir tftw-t.7/tftw-t.7
> chmod 333 tftw-t.7/tftw-t.7
>
> ftw(tftw-t.7/tftw-t.7, ...) and expects Return: -1, errno EACCES.
>
> Error message:
> A call to ftw() with read permission denied did not fail
> Expected Return: -1, errno EACCES
> Actual Return: 0, errno 13(EACCES)
>
>
> No problem to fix, but then the following will fail:
>
> T.ftw 4
>
> mkdir ./ftw_d.1
> chmod 333 ./tfw_d.1
>
> ftw(./tfw_d.1, ...) and expects fn to be called with FTW_DNR.
>
> The exact error message here:
>         ftw(./ftw_d.1, ..., 2) returned -1 instead of 0
>         ftw did not call function with argument FTW_DNR
>         although the root of the file tree given was
>         read-only
>
>
> What is the difference between both? What will the hint with
> teh read-only file tree say me? As far as I can see in the moment,
> it is impossible to fix both test cases, one of them will ever fail.
>
>   Thanks,
>    Thorsten
>
> --
> Thorsten Kukuk       http://www.suse.de/~kukuk/        kukuk@suse.de
> SuSE GmbH            Deutschherrenstr. 15-19       D-90429 Nuernberg
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> Key fingerprint = A368 676B 5E1B 3E46 CFCE  2D97 F8FD 4E23 56C6 FB4B
>-- End of excerpt from Thorsten Kukuk