linux-ext4 - Re: ext4 xfstest regression due to ext4_es_lookup

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:	Sat, 23 Feb 2013 13:37:06 +0400
From:	Dmitry Monakhov <dmonakhov@...nvz.org>
To:	Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
Cc:	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, Zheng Liu <gnehzuil.liu@...il.com>
Subject: Re: ext4 xfstest regression due to ext4_es_lookup_extent

On Fri, 22 Feb 2013 13:03:25 -0500, "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 09:17:57PM +0400, Dmitry Monakhov wrote:
> > 
> > 301'th xfstests are failed due to :
> > commit d100eef2440fea13e4f09e88b1c8bcbca64beb9f
> > Author: Zheng Liu <wenqing.lz@...bao.com>
> > Date:   Mon Feb 18 00:29:59 2013 -0500
> > 
> >     ext4: lookup block mapping in extent status tree
> > 
> > TESTCASE: https://github.com/dmonakhov/xfstests/commit/7b7efeee30a41109201e2040034e71db9b66ddc0
> 
> Thanks for the heads up.  I haven't updatied the xfstests I've been
> using yet, since I want to make sure I'm comparing apples and oranges
> during the merge window when I'm checking for regressions; I'll update
> my xfstests in a week or two after the merge window settles down, and
> then I'll rerun my baseline tests using the updated xfstests against
> 3.8.0 and 3.9-rc2 or 3.9-rc3.
> 
> (And furthermore, these new xfstests aren't yet in xfstests upstream
> yet, right?  Any comments from the xfstests maintainer about whether
> they are going to be willing to take your proposed new test cases?)
I hope so. I think i've fixed things according to Dave's commit.
> So when you say this is a regression, I take it that this test #301
> doesn't fail on commit d100eef2440f^, but it does fail on d100eef2440f,
> correct?
Correct. d100ee is the first bad commit which trigger BUGON()
But issue was introduced earlier  es_cache was not updated
after extents was swapped between inodes.
I'll prepare patch soon.
Actually I think that the regression in 269'th you have found recently
caused by similar issue and commit which you foud by bisecting ( the one
which allow migration between indirect<->extent based inodes)
simply helps to spot real issue in es_caching code.

BUT my main idea is that we need robust self-testing infrastructure
similar one that we have at the time extents was introduced to ext4. 
> 
> 						- 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