linux-ext4 - Re: [Take2 PATCH 00/10][e2fsprogs] Initial blk64

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: <20080526221620.2b43f171@gara>
Date:	Mon, 26 May 2008 22:16:20 -0500
From:	"Jose R. Santos" <jrs@...ibm.com>
To:	Theodore Tso <tytso@....EDU>
Cc:	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Take2 PATCH 00/10][e2fsprogs] Initial blk64_t capable API
 calls.

On Sat, 24 May 2008 19:28:36 -0400
Theodore Tso <tytso@....EDU> wrote:

> On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 12:53:25PM -0500, Jose R. Santos wrote:
> > 
> > The following series of patches implement API call needed to handle
> > 64-bit block numbers.  Im concentrating mainly in providing the API
> > call first and if the interfaces are sane, we can go ahead and start
> > using them in the rest of libext2fs and the user space programs.
> > 
> > I've run checkpatch and make check on each individual patch in the
> > series so they should be ready to add to the main repository if the
> > interfaces are acceptable.
> 
> Jose, running "make check" with these configure options resulted in a
> failure:
> 
> '--enable-elf-shlibs' '--enable-blkid-debug' '--enable-testio-debug' '--enable-maintainer-mode' '--enable-blkid-devmapper' '--enable-jbd-debug'
> 
> Part of the problem was the test_io manager didn't have 64-bit
> support.  I fixed that, and rebased your patch series, but it still
> died with a seg fault in the test u_undoe2fs_mke2fs.  
> 
> Checking out the undo_io manager, it's obvious why; it doesn't yet
> have 64-bit support.  I'm not sure how you missed this, if you were
> running "make check" after each patch.  What version of e2fsprogs was
> your patches based off of?

I did this off the "next" branch which has undo_io manager support but
after "make check", the last line looks like this:

u_undoe2fs_mke2fs: undoe2fs with mke2fs: u_undoe2fs_tune2fs: undoe2fs with tune2fs: 97 tests succeeded  0 tests failed

There is no log file for any of the undo manager test case so it seems
that they didn't even run.  I ran this on a system using Ubuntu, so it
may be a bash vs. dash issues.

> 
>           					- Ted
> 
> 
> % more u_undoe2fs_mke2fs.log 
> mke2fs -q -F -o Linux -b 1024 test.img
> mke2fs 1.41-WIP (27-Apr-2008)
> Filesystem label=
> OS type: Linux
> Block size=1024 (log=0)
> Fragment size=1024 (log=0)
> 64 inodes, 512 blocks
> 25 blocks (4.88%) reserved for the super user
> First data block=1
> Maximum filesystem blocks=524288
> 1 block group
> 8192 blocks per group, 8192 fragments per group
> 64 inodes per group
> 
> Writing inode tables: done                            
> Writing superblocks and filesystem accounting information: done
> 
> md5sum before mke2fs 4a393ac4351a41501aca1ad2917430b9
> using mke2fs to test undoe2fs
> Overwriting existing filesystem; this can be undone using the command:
>     e2undo .//mke2fs-test.img.e2undo ./test.img
> 
> md5sum after mke2fs a34e9c16307770eb318a6afa39e127f6
> check_filesystem: Unknown code ext2 104 Failed tdb_fetch Record does not exist
> 
> md5sum after undoe2fs a34e9c16307770eb318a6afa39e127f6



-JRS
--
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