| 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
| ||
|
Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2012 22:29:30 +0100 From: Nix <nix@...eri.org.uk> To: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com> Cc: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: Apparent serious progressive ext4 data corruption bug in 3.6.3 (and other stable branches?) On 27 Oct 2012, Eric Sandeen spake thusly: > On 10/27/12 4:21 PM, Nix wrote: >> On 27 Oct 2012, Eric Sandeen verbalised: >>> That's what we needed. Woulda been great a few days ago ;) >> >> *wince* sorry! > > It's ok, I know sometimes this testing takes time. It took much less time once I figured out that umount -l at the last moment before reboot would reliably corrupt one filesystem and one filesystem only. Before that, I was having to fsck 2.5Tb of filesystems on every test run, just in case the latest reboot had zapped them too... > It has exposed the fact that we are not doing a good job > regression testing all of the available configurations. This is the Linux kernel: what was it Linus joked years ago, users are the test load? I'm impressed you have any regression testing at all, let alone as much as you seem to. :P :P (But, seriously, fsstress is a wonderful thing. And the kernel's test culture *is* improving, and I'm happy to see filesystem hackers in the front line.) -- NULL && (void) -- 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