linux-kernel - Re: [LTP] statvfs -> f

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 20 Apr 2009 08:42:13 +0200
From:	Michal Simek <michal.simek@...alogix.com>
To:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
CC:	Nate Straz <nate-ltp@...ried.org>, subrata@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	ltp-list@...ts.sourceforge.net,
	John Williams <john.williams@...alogix.com>,
	Linux Kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [LTP] statvfs -> f_bavail

Al Viro wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 08:16:50AM +0200, Michal Simek wrote:
>   
>> Nate Straz wrote:
>>     
>>> On Apr 17 11:12, Michal Simek wrote:
>>>   
>>>       
>>>>> don't you know what is the description of f_bavail in struct statvfs?
>>>>> On my system I am getting zero for this entry that's why fsync02 failed.
>>>>>   
>>>>>       
>>>>>           
>>>> I track down where the problem comes from.
>>>> There is problem for all fs which use simple_statfs function from
>>>> fs/libfs.c.
>>>> In open.c in vfs_statfs function is whole structure set to zero and then
>>>> in simple_statfs not set this value.
>>>> I think we should fix it in ltp code.
>>>> Here is my proposed change. If is ok - I will generate proper patch.
>>>>     
>>>>         
>>> If the problem is in the kernel, then it should be fixed in the kernel.
>>> That's the whole point of LTP, pointing out problems in the kernel which
>>> need to be fixed.  Patching LTP to work around f_bavail not being set
>>> correctly is not the right thing to do.
>>>   
>>>       
>> :-) And what about if is the kernel code ok? :-)
>> Then IMHO is the right time to fix LTP.
>>
>> The main question is if is or not.
>>
>> Hi guys from linux-fsdevel: Can you told us what is the right solution
>> for my problem above?
>>     
>
> "Fields that are undefined for a particular file system are set to 0".
> So what kind of fs are you running that on and is that sucker really
> defined for it?  Note that if it's ramfs or tmpfs with -o nr_blocks=0,
> there is no such thing as "amount of free space", reserved for root
> or not.
I use ramfs and nfs without any -o nr_block=0 option.
That mean that for all other fs is possible to set nr_blocks=0 (f_bavail=0) and for all this cases
fsync02 test failed. That mean that make sense to test f_bavail value in LTP and if is zero
don't work with it. Am I right?

Thanks,
Michal

# mount
rootfs on / type rootfs (rw)
proc on /proc type proc (rw)
none on /var type ramfs (rw)
none on /sys type sysfs (rw)
192.168.0.102:/tftpboot/nfs on /mnt type nfs
(rw,vers=3,rsize=32768,wsize=32768,namlen=255,hard,nointr,nolock,proto=tcp,timeo=70,retrans=3,sec=sys,addr=192.168.0.102)



-- 
Michal Simek, Ing. (M.Eng)
PetaLogix - Linux Solutions for a Reconfigurable World
w: www.petalogix.com p: +61-7-30090663,+42-0-721842854 f: +61-7-30090663

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/