linux-ext4 - Re: Random corruption test for e2fsck

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]

Message-ID: <20070711160343.GA13027@schatzie.adilger.int>
Date:	Wed, 11 Jul 2007 10:03:43 -0600
From:	Andreas Dilger <adilger@...sterfs.com>
To:	Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>
Cc:	Kalpak Shah <kalpak@...sterfs.com>,
	linux-ext4 <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
	TheodoreTso <tytso@....edu>
Subject: Re: Random corruption test for e2fsck

On Jul 10, 2007  10:47 -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> Seems like a pretty good idea.  I had played with such a thing using
> fsfuzzer... fsfuzzer always seemed at least as useful useful as a fsck
> tester than a kernel code tester anyway.  (OOC, did you look at fsfuzzer
> when you did this?)

The person who originally started it had looked at fsfuzzer, but I haven't
myself.

> My only concern is that since it's introducing random corruption, new
> things will probably pop up from time to time; when we do an rpm build
> for Fedora/RHEL, it automatically runs make check:
> 
> %check
> make check

Yes, we added this to our .spec file also, though I didn't realize rpm
had a %check stanza in it.  We just added it into the %build stanza,
but this is something that should be pushed upstream, since it really
makes sense to ensure e2fsprogs is built & running correctly.

> which seems like a reasonably good idea to me.  However, I'd rather not
> have last-minute build failures introduced by new random collection of
> bits that have never been seen before.  Maybe "make RANDOM=0 check" as
> an option would be a good idea for automated builds...?

I've added this to the updated version:
$ f_random_corruption=skip ./test_script f_random_corruption
f_random_corruption: skipped

I wonder if it makes sense to add this as a generic functionality to
test_script, something like:

	[ `eval \$$test_name` = "skip" ] && echo "skipped"

Latest version of the script is attached.

Cheers, Andreas
--
Andreas Dilger
Principal Software Engineer
Cluster File Systems, Inc.


View attachment "e2fsprogs-tests-f_random_corruption.patch" of type "text/plain" (9029 bytes)