[PATCH] Support FreeBSD jails for testing

[Maxim Dounin]

Hello!

On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 06:24:11PM +0100, Steven Hartland wrote:

> On 16/10/2015 13:05, Maxim Dounin wrote:
> >Hello!
> >
> >On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 12:09:49AM +0000, Steven Hartland wrote:
> >
> >># HG changeset patch
> >># User Steven Hartland <steven.hartland at multiplay.co.uk>
> >># Date 1444954080 0
> >>#      Fri Oct 16 00:08:00 2015 +0000
> >># Node ID c22d8299e7040e0de6f85b4e96d0dd953f7af644
> >># Parent  78b4e12e6efe642aff591234db0f0b040cae9b5e
> >>Support FreeBSD jails for testing
> >>
> >>Ensure the test directory is read and writable to the test user.
> >>
> >>If you request 127.0.0.1 in a FreeBSD jail without specific access
> >>to 127.0.0.1 then the socket binds to the interface address to
> >>maintain compatibility. This results in the log entries being
> >>from the bound interface address. To prevent failure compare
> >>with the bound IP when requesting 127.0.0.1 in combined test.
> >This jails behaviour is known to cause many problems, in
> >particular, it makes impossible nginx binary upgrades unless all
> >listen sockets are explicitly bound to jail's IP address.
> >
> >Fortunately, this was resolved several years ago by introduction
> >of multi-IP jails.  You may try to use them for tests instead.
> >
> >Adding quirks everywhere to support this brain-damaged "no
> >127.0.0.1" case looks like a wrong way to go for me.  Especially
> >given the fact that simple solution exists for years.
> >
> >[...]
> That doesn't fix the directory permission issue which causes pretty much
> every test to fail, so is this still an option for inclusion?

Directory premissions may vary depending on umask used.  If your 
umask breaks tests for you - you may try changing it while running 
tests.  It also shouldn't be important when running tests under 
non-privileged user.

I don't think this change should be added at all, and don't 
see how it's related to FreeBSD jails your patch says it's about.

> With regards to binding 127.0.0.1, yes its possible to bind it using multi
> IP, but doing so breaks security if you share it with the host, so its only
> possible in some situations and usually only for a proper loop back address
> which wouldn't be 127.0.0.1 just in that /24.

AFAIR, multi-IP jails used to provide per-jail loopback 
addresses.  But may be I'm wrong here and mistaken with wildcard 
addresses.

> I do agree quirks aren't ideal, but as its only the one test I thought it
> would be nice to have given there's a simple and reliable way to correct
> said test.
> 
> With this in mind would you be up for making an exception in this case?

As long as it's the only test affected we may consider it.
Sergey, could you please take a look?

-- 
Maxim Dounin
http://nginx.org/