linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH] libext2fs: add new test: tst_inode

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:	Wed, 14 Sep 2011 18:15:59 -0400
From:	Ted Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
To:	Andreas Dilger <adilger@...ger.ca>
Cc:	Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] libext2fs: add new test: tst_inode_size

On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 02:47:08PM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> One thing I noticed with this check_field() macro is that it doesn't
> actually detect the case if the size of a field is changed.  This hit
> me when I was making a cleanup to the large journal patch which renamed
> s_jnl_blocks[15] to s_jnl_size_lo and s_jnl_blocks[16] to s_jnl_size_hi
> for clarity.  The tst_super_size test passed just fine, but the e2fsck
> test scripts failed in weird and wonderful ways.
> 
> A better solution might be to explicitly pass the expected field size
> instead of getting both the size and offset from the structure itself.
> Since these structures change very rarely it isn't much maintenance,
> but it would be lousy if code was released that had some incorrect
> field offset because someone increased or decreased an earlier field
> without thinking enough, and those fields weren't used in normal tests.
> 
> I can submit a patch if you are interested.

Good point.  Yes, I agree it would be worth while to do this.

     	     	    	     	      - 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