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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 19:02:44 +0800 From: Forrest Liu <forrestl@...ology.com> To: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu> Cc: Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] e2fsck: make sure the extent tree is consistent after bogus node in the tree I have test these patches, and they work fine. Thanks for the tip - Forrest 2012/12/21 Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>: > And here is the test case.... > > BTW, #protip: You can use the split_node command in tst_extents > debugging program not only to perform node splits (which will make the > tree wider), but if you try splitting at the root node, it will > allocate a new extent tree block, and then move all of the extent tree > nodes at the top-level, in the inode, into the new exterior extent > tree block. In effect, this will make the tree deeper. > > This should allow you to make fairly arbitrarily deep and complex > extent trees by hand, without having to resort to using fallocate and > punch hole commands, which tend to take a lot longer than using the > "insert_extent", "replace_extent", and "split_node" commands in > tst_extent when creating test cases. > > This also makes it easier to create small test file system images so > we don't have to bloat the e2fsprogs source tree with huge test file > systems in our regression test suite (which also tend to very much > slow down running said regression test suite). > > Regards, > > - Ted > -- 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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists