RFR: 8341310: Test TestJcmdWithSideCar.java should skip ACCESS_TMP_VIA_PROC_ROOT (after JDK-8327114) [v3]

[Kevin Walls]

On Wed, 2 Oct 2024 18:46:07 GMT, Severin Gehwolf <sgehwolf at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> The change of [JDK-8327114](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8327114) also increased test coverage. In particular, the `TestJcmdWithSideCar.java` test got enhanced to cover these cases (prior to [JDK-8327114](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8327114) only case 1 was tested):
>> 
>> 1. Shared volumes between attachee and attacher and shared pid namespace
>> 2. Shared volumes between attachee and attacher and shared pid namespace, both running with elevated privileges
>> 3. Shared pid namespace between attachee and attacher only
>> 4. Shared pid namespace between attachee and attacher, both running with elevated privileges
>> 
>> The OpenJDK attach code is able to handle cases 1 through 3 which pass, but the last case, `4`, hasn't been implemented yet when running as regular user and directing the container runtime to map the container user to that user as well. Thus, the test fails. For now I propose to disable the 4th test case. It can get re-enabled once the product code got updated to account for this case (tracked in https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8341349).
>> 
>> Thoughts? Could somebody please run this through Oracle's test system in order to see if this fixes the issue? Thank you!
>
> Severin Gehwolf has updated the pull request incrementally with two additional commits since the last revision:
> 
>  - Revert "Improve runtime of test"
>    
>    This reverts commit 5b2f646c73b747f6fff364347031074d24e49822.
>  - Revert "Remove the attachee container if it exists"
>    
>    This reverts commit ef7abf249268c30f726bee19dde3337d92c6493d.

Marked as reviewed by kevinw (Reviewer).

Sorry, was saying that the other failure type, ("'sun.tools.jcmd.JCmd' missing") is happening now in CI.  I have not reproduced it with the change in this PR.

But, as that "other" failure is happening with "sidecar", skipping ACCESS_TMP_VIA_PROC_ROOT should not fix it?  So maybe there is e.g. a chance/timing problem.

Either way, this change as it stands is still good, I think we should get it in to minimise the problems.  I can monitor and see if the "JCmd missing" problem happens again.

-------------

PR Review: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/21289#pullrequestreview-2345497444
PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/21289#issuecomment-2391318529