linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH 0/6 v2] Introduce FALLOC_FL_ZERO

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:	Mon, 17 Mar 2014 13:59:35 +0100 (CET)
From:	Lukáš Czerner <lczerner@...hat.com>
To:	tytso@....edu
cc:	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6 v2] Introduce FALLOC_FL_ZERO_RANGE flag for
 fallocate

On Sun, 16 Mar 2014, tytso@....edu wrote:

> Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2014 15:08:20 -0400
> From: tytso@....edu
> To: Lukas Czerner <lczerner@...hat.com>
> Cc: linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6 v2] Introduce FALLOC_FL_ZERO_RANGE flag for fallocate
> 
> On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 08:14:33PM +0100, Lukas Czerner wrote:
> > Introduce new FALLOC_FL_ZERO_RANGE flag for fallocate. This has the same
> > functionality as xfs ioctl XFS_IOC_ZERO_RANGE.
> 
> Hi Lukas,
> 
> I've been trying to merge these patches into the ext4 tree, and I'm
> running into a large number of test failures.  Could you take a quick
> eyeball and see if there's anything obvious wrong?
> 
> The "dev2" branch in the ext4 git tree has all the patches in this
> series (1, 2, and 5) --- 3 was included earlier applied on top of the
> "dev" branch.  The "test" branch is the dev2 branch with the
> xfs-collapse-range branch pulled in, which actually enables the
> ZERO_RANGE flags (as well as the collapse range patches).
> 
> I have tested the "dev" branch both standalone and with the
> xfs-collapse-range branch pulled in, and things seem to be pretty
> stable.  I'm doing more comprehensive testing now to confirm things.
> (I'm using xfstests commit id 3948694eb12 which has the latest tests
> to exercise the zero_range codepath.)
> 
> When I tried testing with the "test" branch, things failed pretty
> quickly.  I've attached two of these in this patch set.  I'm guessing
> it's some kind of memory corruption problem.  These failures are
> pretty repeatable, and it fails fast.
> 
> If I try running the "dev2" branch, without the xfstests collapse
> range branch pulled in, things are much better (so there's clearly a
> bug in the ZERO_RANGE code path), but there was still a few more
> errors than the baseline.  I'm rerunning those tests so I can be sure
> that the results are repeatable.
> 
> I suspect the problem is that something in the dev branch isn't
> playing well with your patches, or I screwed up while fixing up some
> merge conflicts -- but the merge conflicts were pretty minimal, so
> that seems a bit unlikely.
> 
> Anyway, if you could take a look, I'd really appreciate it.  Thanks!!
> 
> 	       	     	    	      	     - Ted

That's definitely very weird and I have not seen that before. i am
looking into this right not.

Thanks!
-Lukas

> 
> 
--
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