linux-ext4 - Re: How were some of the lustre e2fsprogs test cases generated?

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, 18 Feb 2008 19:36:44 -0500
From:	Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>
To:	Andreas Dilger <adilger@....com>
Cc:	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: How were some of the lustre e2fsprogs test cases generated?

On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 07:06:58PM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> 
> The clusterfs e2fsprogs code doesn't notice this, because it apparently
> ignores ee_start_hi field entirely.  

One minor correction --- the clusterfs e2fsprogs extents code checks
to see if the ee_leaf_hi field is non-zero, and complains if so.
However, it ignores the ee_start_hi field for interior (non-leaf)
nodes in the extent tree, and a number of tests do have non-zero
ee_start_hi fields which cause my version of e2fsprogs to (rightly)
complain.

If you fix this, a whole bunch of tests will fail as a result, and not
exercise the code paths that the tests were apparently trying to
exercise.  Which is what is causing me a bit of worry and wonder about
how those test cases were originally generated....

Regards,

						- Ted
-
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