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: Tue, 15 Aug 2017 22:32:41 +0200 From: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com> To: Vijay Chidambaram <vvijay03@...il.com> Cc: Josef Bacik <josef@...icpanda.com>, Ext4 <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>, linux-xfs <linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org>, linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.og, Ashlie Martinez <ashmrtn@...xas.edu> Subject: Re: CrashMonkey: A Framework to Systematically Test File-System Crash Consistency On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 8:01 PM, Vijay Chidambaram <vvijay03@...il.com> wrote: > Hi Josef and Amir, > ... > > @Amir: Given that Josef's code is already in the kernel, do you think > changing CrashMonkey code would be useful? We are always happy to > provide something for upstream, but we want to be sure how much work > would be involved. > Simply put, people (myself included) are more likely to use CrashMonkey if it uses upstream kernel and/or if it brings valuable functionality to filesystem testing, beyond what log-writes already does - I am have not studies either tools yet to be able to determine if that is the case. Cheers, Amir.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists