linux-ext4 - Re: Soft lockups in mballoc code

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]

Message-ID: <18491.8218.574435.741417@frecb006361.adech.frec.bull.fr>
Date:	Mon, 26 May 2008 22:39:54 +0200
From:	Solofo.Ramangalahy@...l.net
To:	nicholas.dokos@...com
Cc:	cmm@...ibm.com, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Soft lockups in mballoc code 

Nick Dokos writes:
 > No, I am not seeing them any more

Good!

 > So it seems to be entirely caused by my bad choice of a config file.

I don't see anything wrong with what you did.

 > As a matter of good practice, is defconfig+ext4dev the best way of
 > producing a kernel for ext4 testing purposes?

No, I don't think so. I have used it because this is reasonably fast
to compile.

I don't think there is a best single .config for testing ext4 (but
let's see what other think).

Using .config from distributions is fine since it is the way some
users get ext4 (that's why I tested Fedora 9 too).
Using other ways is also fine since it increases testing coverage.

 > Are there any settings
 > that should be added/delete/modified from the default?

Yes, for example, defconfig lacks options from the "Kernel Hacking"
section for testability which are mentionned e.g. in
Documentation/SubmitChecklist.

-- 
solofo

--
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