linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH 3/3] fstests: generic: Check the fs after each FUA writes

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 21 Mar 2018 22:27:15 +0800
From:   Eryu Guan <guaneryu@...il.com>
To:     Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com>
Cc:     Qu Wenruo <wqu@...e.com>,
        Linux Btrfs <linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org>,
        fstests <fstests@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-xfs <linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ext4 <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] fstests: generic: Check the fs after each FUA writes

On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 02:22:29PM +0200, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> > +
> > +_log_writes_mount
> > +$FSSTRESS_PROG $fsstress_args > /dev/null 2>&1
> 
> You should run fsstress with run_check() so output will go to $seqres.full
> this way if you are able to catch a bug, you can take the random seed
> from fsstress output and repeat the same event sequence, which
> doesn't guaranty, but can increase the chances of reproducing the bug.

I suggested dropping run_check, as I don't think we care about the
fsstress return value here (and I always try to avoid new run_check
usage), but I agree that it might be useful to save the fsstress output
to $seqres.full.

Thanks,
Eryu