linux-ext4 - Re: Ubuntu Ext4 regression testing

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: <50513F22.3040201@canonical.com>
Date:	Wed, 12 Sep 2012 19:04:18 -0700
From:	Brad Figg <brad.figg@...onical.com>
To:	Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>
CC:	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, xfs-oss <xfs@....sgi.com>
Subject: Re: Ubuntu Ext4 regression testing

On 09/12/2012 06:51 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> On 9/12/12 7:41 PM, Brad Figg wrote:
> 
>> Eric,
>>
>> Thanks for taking the time to point this out. We will adjust our testing accordingly.
>> We initially tried to run xfstest against ext2, ext3, ext4, xfs and btrfs. We are also
>> trying to get these tests to run on several different kernel versions as you can
>> see from our test results. We were running into issues on different kernels and various
>> file-systems while getting our act together, we did this as a band-aid.
> 
> I see.
> 
>> I accept that we have some things to learn w.r.t. running this test suite. We will work
>> to run the xfstests "as is" without any outside "intelligence". We do recognise that
>> is a dynamic set of tests that people are adding to regularly.
>>
>> I am not attempting to get just a series of "pass" results. If that were my goal
>> I could accomplish it much easier and would not have engaged with the community
>> on the mailing list. We want to help where we can and will accept constructive
>> criticism.
> 
> Sorry, it sounds like I came across too strong there - it was just a little worrying to see failing or problematic tests disabled or otherwise artificially restricted.
> 
> I'm actually very excited to see you setting up ongoing, public testing using xfstests, I think it'll be a great benefit, especially if there's a way to see a particular test's results across several kernel versions and/or filesystems and/or architectures, so that patterns of failure can emerge.
> 
> If you find that xfstests is missing some feature or behavior which would facilitate testing in the automated environment, please do let us know what you need - or send patches.  :)
> 
> Thanks,
> -Eric
> 
>> Brad
>>
> 

No harm, no foul. We really don't mind constructive criticism. We are also
eager to get this setup and running. We will try to contribute more than
just running tests.

I do want to point out that we are using the xfstests which is a snapshot
in autotest. We do also look at the latest xfstests in the official xfstests
repo and add it in when we see a delta. We will also work with the autotest
maintainers to stay more up-to-date with xfstests.

Thanks,
Brad
-- 
Brad Figg brad.figg@...onical.com http://www.canonical.com
--
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