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]
Date:	Mon, 30 Jun 2008 10:53:46 +0900
From:	Toshiyuki Okajima <toshi.okajima@...fujitsu.com>
To:	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
CC:	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: (take 2)[PATCH] JBD: positively dispose the unmapped data buffers
 in journal_commit_transaction

Hi,

Jan Kara wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Jan Kara wrote:
>>>  Hi,
>>>
>>>> I updated my patch and introduction article for it by reflecting
>>>> the comment of Andrew's.
>> <SNIP>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Toshiyuki Okajima <toshi.okajima@...fujitsu.com>
>>>  I agree with the change. It's true that we can leave some anonymous
>>> pages behind and it's nicer to the MM to release them earlier when we
>>> know they will be never needed again. The patch looks fine to me, you
>>> can add
>>>  Acked-by: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
>> Thank you for confirming.
>   Please keep me CCed (use group reply), thanks. I sometimes don't have
> time for reading mailing lists or just skim through them so I can easily
> miss replies...

OK, I will keep you CCed next time.

>>>  How much have you stressed the patched kernel? I suggest you use
>>> fsxlinux and put some memory pressure to the system...
>> I have stressed it for 72 or more hours.
>> Stresser does:
>>  - allocates/frees big memory(1.7GB) which was almost system
>>    memory size(2GB) repeatedly.
>   OK, I suppose you also wrote something to the memory (otherwise it
> won't be really allocated).

I forgot to explain. You are right.
It writes something to each of all pages.

>> Confirmation of integrity of patched Filesystem(jbd) does:
>>  - creates files, and copies 3 files from created each file
>>    (3 copies run concurrently), and confirms whether there is
>>    no difference between created files and copied files.
>>  (20 processes runs these works concurrently and repeatedly.)
>> Above 2 jobs run concurrently.
>   This sounds reasonable. fsxlinux does actually something similar but
> it also stresses mmaped accesses and truncate patch. In this case, what
> you did should be enough.
> 
> 								Honza

I wrote only abstract of my long run test at previous mail,
but my test does also mmaped accesses.
So, it seems my test works really the same as fsxlinux...

Thanks,
---
Toshiyuki Okajima

--
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

Powered by blists - more mailing lists