linux-ext4 - Port xfstests 145, 161, 175, 176, 185?

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4DEFC41A.9070701@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Wed, 08 Jun 2011 11:48:58 -0700
From:	Allison Henderson <achender@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	xfs-oss <xfs@....sgi.com>
Subject: Port xfstests 145, 161, 175, 176, 185?

Hi all!

During one of my reviews for the punch hole tests patch set it was 
mentioned that it would be helpful to take the xfstests 145, 161, 175, 
176, 185 and modify them such that they can run with out requiring the 
dmapi.  These tests contain some more interesting punch hole tests, but 
they dont normally run unless there is support for dmapi.

I did take a peek at them and I was thinking that if we decide to do 
this, we would probably need to do something like introduce a new set of 
source code that is similar to what is seen under the dmapi folder, but 
modified to use a generic interface instead of the dmapi libraries.  We 
could try to merge them into a single code path, but I think that may 
introduce more complexities than would be desirable.

I just wanted to get a general consensus of how many people would be 
interested in this idea.  Thx all!

Allison Henderson
--
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