linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH 4/8] Add test of quota accounting using fsx

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 27 Jul 2010 10:15:38 +0200
From:	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
To:	Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...deen.net>
Cc:	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, hch@...radead.org, xfs@....sgi.com,
	ext4 development <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/8] Add test of quota accounting using fsx

On Mon 26-07-10 16:46:17, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> On 06/15/2010 04:55 AM, Jan Kara wrote:
> > On Wed 09-06-10 12:49:49, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> >> Jan Kara wrote:
> >>> Run fsx (and also several fsx threads in parallel) and verify that
> >>> quota accounting is correct after they finish.
> >>
> >> Jan, I'm having trouble with this one on XFS for some reason, with our 
> >> RHEL6 kernel and quota-3.17...
> >   OK, attached is an improvement to the XFSQA tests after which all quota
> > tests pass for XFS just fine.
> >   The second patch is just minor general improvement of _require_scratch
> > macro.
> >   Could they be added to XFSQA repository? Thanks.
> 
> Jan, I've got some ext4 failures reported on these, although I can't hit
> them, so not quite sure what's going on.
> 
> In 231:
> 
> +< fsgqa     --     760       0       0              3     0     0
> +---
> +> fsgqa     --     764       0       0              3     0     0
> +14c14
> +< fsgqa     --     760       0       0              3     0     0
> +---
> +> fsgqa     --     764       0       0              3     0     0
> 
> after the quotacheck & repquota we have 4 more blocks.  Maybe this
> is due to my accounting of metadata blocks at write time, and not
> before ... would it be reasonable to put a sync call as the first
> line of check_usage() ?
  Just last week a change went into xfstests which introduces a generic
quota checking function and uses sync before getting quota usage. I think
xfstests passed for me with ext4 after this change but I've now restarted
the tests to recheck it.
  
> Also in 233:
> 
> +< #501      --   15392       0       0            998     0     0
> +< #501      --   15392   32000   32000            998  1000  1000
> +---
> +> #501      +-   32084   32000   32000  7days     998  1000  1000
> +> #501      --   32084       0       0            998     0     0
> 
> "7days" magically appeared after the quotacheck.  Not sure what's going
> on there...
  That's because the usage after checking exceeded block soft limit and
thus grace time has been set. So it's the same problem as in the above
test.

								Honza
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
SUSE Labs, CR
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html