Hi,
Glenn Washburn wrote:
> Why does only one suffice? It
> sounds like they test different code paths. Is it possible that there
> is a future code regression such that one iso succeeds and the other
> fails?
They follow different code paths before hunk 4 of patch 5 fixes the
bug that CE and ST at the start of a continuation area are ignored:
@@ -331,6 +340,13 @@ grub_iso9660_susp_iterate (grub_fshelp_node_t node,
grub_off_t off,
return err;
entry = (struct grub_iso9660_susp_entry *) sua;
+ /*
+ * The hook function will not process CE or ST.
+ * Advancing to the next entry would skip them.
+ */
+ if (grub_strncmp ((char *) entry->sig, "CE", 2) == 0
+ || grub_strncmp ((char *) entry->sig, "ST", 2) == 0)
+ continue;
}
if (hook (entry, hook_arg))
After this change, the first three hunks of patch 5 prevent that the
now common code path is an endless loop.
So a behavioral difference of ce_loop.iso and ce_loop2.iso is to expect
only if above patch hunk #4 gets reverted.
> Ok, so there should be no output on success then for both ce_loop and
>ce_loop2, correct? (for "grub-fstest <iso> ls /" )
Yes. Actually i would have expected an error message to be emitted.
But somehow grub-fstest does not show the text from:
+ return grub_error (GRUB_ERR_BAD_FS,
+ "suspecting endless CE loop");
Have a nice day :)
Thomas
_______________________________________________
Grub-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
